Juanito, I think you might be missing the point. Sure, on the surface of things it would seem that they don’t have a reason to lie. But aren’t you forgetting what Jerry Falwell said… That the whole global warming thing is just the devil’s way of getting the church to ignore the important work of spreading the gospel? They’re lying, you see, because the devil’s making them do it.

Just like the devil is making those dirty, pinko-commie, “progressive”, liberal “christians” lie and say that the “gospel” that Jesus brought us was about ridiculous grace that manifests itself for a desire for social justice and a loving, non-destructive lifestyle that seeks to live at peace with the whole world, both natural and human.

Why can’t they see that the real gospel is about saving people like homos and liberals and abortionists from the burning fires of hell, where they’ll most surely end up if we don’t do something TODAY!

Seriously. The earth can’t be destroyed before God’s time (as revealed through the completely literal testimony of the Book of Revelation and further illuminated in the sacred “Left Behind” series), so nothing we do to the planet can affect that timing in one way or another.

God is completely in control of everything that happens ever. Everything that happens is God’s first choice for how it could happen, and nothing we do can have the slightest effect on that. Anyone who says differently is a dirty armenian, and if Our Father, John Calvin were alive today, he’d have these heretics burned at the stake and poked, as they died, with sharp sticks.

The Bible, you see, is not so much a creative work of God through men who lived in a specific time as it is a sort of an extension of the ten commandments, which HE wrote with his very own FINGER. These are black-and-white prescriptions of rules for Living, and the only problem is that there aren’t enough of them. Even so, their meaning is always perfectly clear and perfectly in line with what we, today, happen to think is right.

Little indiscretions like the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials and the wholehearted endorsement of Slavery were historical misunderstandings but today, through Progressive Revelation of the Most High directly to us (the collective protestant, conservative, Republican clump) we have at last arrived at a real and true understanding of the Mind of God.

That’s right, His thoughts are actually Our thoughts and His ways are Our ways. At least, for the most part – enough for us to say with firm condition, as revealed by God, that there is no such thing as global warming. I rest my case.
-- josh (Email) (URL) - 26 April '07 - 16:34

So you are joking right Josh??? I so hope you are being sarcastic because if not I can hardly count the ways I am deeply offended by the above commentary.

I really like this gem…

“Little indiscretions like the Crusades and the Salem Witch Trials and the wholehearted endorsement of Slavery were historical misunderstandings but today, through Progressive Revelation of the Most High directly to us (the collective protestant, conservative, Republican clump) we have at last arrived at a real and true understanding of the Mind of God.”

I am speechless. I hope you do not have children.

Someone fill me in here, this has got to be a twisted bit of satire…?
-- jj - 26 April '07 - 21:33

:O Oh its you Josh B. hhhhhaaahahahaaaa, holy cow I was kinda scared for a second! Phew!

Very good! Bravo… jeez, I couldn’t believe my eyes!

:p
-- jj - 26 April '07 - 21:40

I totally agree Josh. If that isn’t true, then nothing I believe in is true.
-- christian - 26 April '07 - 23:42

Okay… since I started it. This will be fun. :) I will try to use non-big-oil, and non-USIndustrialMachine references only. I am, however, a scientist, and a University of Illinois trained Biologist… so bear with me as I thoroughly reference the logic against man-made global warming for you.

The earth IS warming. Roughly .8 deg C since 1850. (My upcoming comments are sound enough that I won’t even bother to call it insignificant at this point.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instr..

The earth is warmed primarily by the Sun. The Sun has a direct contribution to the earth’s climate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Oceans cover roughly 70% of the earth’s surface and are warmed by the Sun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceans

Due in part to massive volume, they provide a tremendous buffer for temperature change as well as “utilization” and processing of atmospheric CO2. http://brneurosci.org/co2.html The same article goes on to describe the role of water vapor in absorbing reflected long-wave rediation from the Sun.

Water vapor and clouds account for up to 98% of the greenhouse warming effect. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg1.. (Please note… Carefully selected citation… Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T.) None of the major climate models factor in water vapor or increases in cloud cover due to warming.

So… enough for now about H20… let’s look at CO2. This site expounds upon man-made versus naturally produced CO2. The result shows a 96.8% natural component and a 3.2% contribution by man to atmospheric CO2. http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossil..

Here is where we stand based on the science. .8 degrees x 5% “non-water” warming effect x 3.2% man-made contribution to total CO2 × 50% reduction through ocean buffering = a 0.00064 degree increase in total temperature that is scientifically attributable to human behavior since 1850.

Clean energy is now a $226 BILLION / year industry. http://news.com.com/Biofuels+power+clean.. (even I was surprised at that!) That makes the total YEARLY expenditure to combat man-made global warming approximately $353,125,000,000,000 per man-made degree increase in temperature since 1850.

Scientists… the BEST ones… can’t tell me what the weather will be next week Tuesday. Yet the proposed spending of my tax dollars seems limitless as long as we’re “fighting” global warming. When someone figures out how to “fight” solar activity and its influence on water vapor, let me know.

Finally, my dear bro-in-law, we agree on something. The US is most certainly fighting an un-just war. (I just think it’s NOT the one in Iraq)

p.s. If you have a chance, Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear” is an exceptional commentary on the economies built around certain geopolitical issues.
-- Eric (Email) - 27 April '07 - 00:09

okay, so am i the only person who thinks that josh’s rant was over the top? sarcasm is one thing but come on. it would be easy to interpret your comment in an equally opposite extreme way. are you suggesting that Jesus didn’t come to save sinners from the wrath of God? are you suggesting that the gospel is only about social justice? are you seriously putting falwell and calvin in the same category? are you smoking crack? in all fairness josh what do you believe? the satire you present would be awful if you truly believed it (which you obviously don’t) but the exact opposite of what you present above is unbiblical as well. what say you?
-- travis (Email) (URL) - 27 April '07 - 00:19

Eric — i’m familiar with the water vapor argument, and believe that most scientists maintain that water vapor in our atmosphere — over which we have virtually no direct influence — is, however, proportionately related to the presence of other greenhouse gases and the warmth of the atmosphere. But remember, i’m not going to argue the science.

So, would you care to look up how much the petrochemical industry is worth per year? You wanna figure out how much it cost them to hike the temperature up that 0.8 degree? So does this whole issue look like two wealthy and powerful industrial factions battling for dominance of public thought? Like Coke and Pepsi? Ford and Chevy? Dems and GOP?
-- juanito (Email) (URL) - 27 April '07 - 00:50

I didn’t know Josh wasn’t serious. Does anyone question his stance (ie. the Biblical stance). I’ll leave the science to the scientists. That’s why I’m buying the whole global warming theory.
-- christian - 27 April '07 - 02:01

OOOOOeeeee, this is fun! Nobody ever really responds to what I say on MY website. I mean, they read it, but I think maybe my friends are too afraid of my blustering “wroth” to fight back.

If you want clarification on just how serious I was, look at http://www.barkingreed.com

As to “christian“s responses, I just can’t figure out whether he/she is being serious, or just trumping my facetiosness with an even more over-the-top sarcasm. Is it possible that someone really believes the Crusades were just a “little indiscretion”? Or that calling your detractors “dirty, pinko-commie, liberal ‘christians’” is actually something that someone with an eye for the mind of God would do? Ouch.

A note on satire: It’s been a long time since I read it, but I think it was Jonathan Swift who wrote “a modest proposal”, suggesting that the overcrowding problem in London should be solved by eating the lower-income children. The intention there was to shock people – but good satire, I think, has the ability to shock people with regards to just what, exactly, different people are having a problem with. In Rohinton Mistry’s novel “A Fine Balance”, he has one of his “upper class” characters arguing that they should solve India’s overpopulation by offering a poisoned meal to all the poor people – and HE was serious! All that to say that there is a fine line between the ludicrous and the palatable where the twisted minds of human beings are concerned.

I suppose, however, that since some of you have dignified my comment with a serious reply (travis, eric), then I will try to reign in my never-give-a-fully-straight-answer tendancies and explain, just a scoach, what I actually believe.

So here it is: Like juanito, I will NOT argue science. I am not qualified, really. However, just like I will take whatever an “environmental scientist” tells me with a bucket of salt, so too will I look askance at what you, Eric, are telling me. While scientific inquiry is, I think, very important, the attitude in which it is undertaken seems to have a crucial role to play in its conclusions. And it’s very rare to find a scientist who isn’t just a little bit cocky.

What I get, from most everybody, is arrogance. What I’d like, in the idyllic utopia I’ll never see, is humility.

For me, in this age of information proliferation, what I am left to hang my hat on is the anecdotal evidence of personal experience. This evidence indicates to me that the way we in this country waste resources, is DISGUSTING. What is it now – something like 50 MILLION children a year DIE from malnutrition-related illness? And this while we spend enough money on our PETS to feed ALL OF them?!?

Christ, obviously, did not talk about recycling and lowering your ecological impact. But his was a different world, and he DID offer principles of selflessness and love that, lovingly considered in quietude, cannot help but convict a selfish consumer, conformist north american attitude. THAT, I suppose, is my dogma.

Regardless of how bad things actually are, I find the attitudes of myself and of my north american brethren to be ABHORRENT in the light of who Christ is and what the Bible (and, possibly, some other stuff?) reveals to be the heart of God. If you can’t see that, then it’s going to be hard for us to actually have a worthwhile conversation.

Let me pause to say something about complicity. Even the most eco-friendly hippie-type person here benefits from a culture and a political environment that both allows his or her lifestyle AND makes it financially feasible. Regardless of how hard I try to not be a wasteful, destructive person, I can’t effect any honest change before I admit that the warpedness of my culture effects ME as much as anyone else.

My bottom line, I guess, is that arrogance begets folly. People who actually hold the attitudes described in my satirical response to Juanito’s post have done a lot of foolish things and steamrolled a lot of opposition. So, too, have arrogant folks on the “other side” of the issue (if you believe they’re actually at odds). Everybody cheats and lies and villifies in order to win at all costs, ranting and raving that the very TRUTH is at stake.

I am reminded of the Calvin and Hobbes strip in which Calvin stands alone, outside, beneath the stars, howling “I AM SIGNIFICANT!” Another two panels go by with him just standing there and then he adds, sotto voce, “said the speck”.

I could sit here and rant and rave and try to sound smarter and more convincing than you, and you, or you – but I won’t. It’s too appealing to my Dark and Dingy nature. Instead, I ask that you open yourself, humbly, to allowing God’s truth to speak to you about YOUR economic choices. Do you, in fact, live as if you truly believe that you are a Steward, gifted by God with the care (not ownership, CARE) of one of his most precious creations? Or are you perhaps, in some ways, a bit more like the Steward of Gondor in the Lord of The Rings, who’d been left in charge so long that all he could think about was his power and control? I know I am. His attidude was madness, but it is oh so familiar.

We can sit around screaming “THE SKY IS FALLING – AND ANYONE WHO SAYS DIFFERENTLY IS A FASCIST”. We can sit around screaming “THE SKY IS NOT FALLING – AND THAT GUY’S AN IDIOT!” Either way – you’re screaming!

Please stop screaming. It hurts my ears.
-- josh (Email) (URL) - 27 April '07 - 10:32

Yeah… what he said!
-- juanito (Email) (URL) - 27 April '07 - 11:51

i’ll try to be quieter when i say… the fact that you won’t argue science is exactly my point in citing some of the scientists who disagree. those propogating global warming as a legitimate issue would have you believe that the science is resolved, when quite obviously it is not. there are many, many scientists who believe otherwise. the most lucid theories sugggest natural co2 increases are a result of warming… not the cause. basically, what i’m trying to say is that you should maybe be more interested in understanding the science rather than dismissing it… you’re better than that. if you take the time to inderstand 4th dimensional physics and the behavior of light, looking at how clouds work to cool the earth (but are omitted from models that predict certain doom) shouldn’t be all that much to ask.

in answer to your most recent question…the peterochemical industry is not profiting from an effort to raise the temperature 8/10 of a degree. they are profiting from an effort to make a profit in the petrochemical business… which may or may not be a contributing factor to temperature rises in the last century. i see the temperature change and the profit to be largely unrelated… making that calculation unnecessary however, the profit of the “green” industries is directly and necessarily linked to proving some adverse impact of man-made co2 on global climate… which is why the calculation becomes relevant.

one more thing… i thought josh’s original response was clever and original. :) i wasn’t responding to it. it was good enough on its own. i was talking more to juanito and his selective denial of scientific fact with the post i had before. i’m really surprised anyone didn’t see that for what it was. how crazy do you think right-wingers get??? “sacred” left behind series… our father, john calvin… lmao. it stung a little… but it was a dandy. :)
-- Eric (Email) - 27 April '07 - 14:36

Oh yeah… josh… I AM totally arrogant and have an insatiable need to be right all the time. I’m really working hard to tone it down in real life, but I pretty much let it live the life it wants to on Juanito’s blog. :)
-- Eric (Email) - 27 April '07 - 14:44

josh,
i truly didn’t realize i was screaming. i actually thought i was just typing, but maybe i was typing loudly. i appreciate the additional thoughts you shared above. however, you really didn’t touch on many of the subjects i was wondering about and that you satirized in your original post. i don’t think my questions were intended to pull you into a conversation that appeals to either of our dark and dingy natures. i simply wanted to know your thoughts on the issues you brought up.
-- travis (Email) (URL) - 28 April '07 - 00:00

I’m not going to get caught up in a science argument because so many people smarter and better studied than i have already done it. I’m dismissive of arguments, not science. This is because of my belief that most scientists really, genuinely are trying to do good science, and not just back up their liberal agenda and financial portfolios with fabrications and hoaxes. Further, i believe that scientists are generally a smart bunch, and issues we could think up around the empty dinner table have been weighed carefully. You’re not going to induce any forehead smacking Gee Whizes from a climate scientists by saying “What about clouds? What about water vapor? GOTCHA!!!”

This reminds me a great deal of the anti-evolution and young earth arguments, which hold up anomalies like the fossil which intersects several strata or modern human bones discovered in ancient strata, and maintains that since the prevailing thought can’t explain those, the whole of the body of thought is wrong.

There remains a great deal of unknowns and uncertainty to climate change. Eric mentioned that the weatherman can’t tell us what the weather is going to be like tomorrow, so how can they know what’s going to happen long term? To quote Eric, “you’re better than that”. My only reply to you will be an analogy; i have no idea if, today, you’re going to leave your family to go shopping, but i’ll say that’s it’s “very likely” that you’re never going to leave your family. :)

If you’re interested in the science, my first search of google was very helpful. Of course, i didn’t have to look far to find discussions of the water vapor effect, and how to talk to “climate skeptics”, but that’s because at the moment, it’s red hot to be green.
-- juanito (Email) (URL) - 28 April '07 - 09:26

fair enough, travis.
I guess I tend to ramble and forget what I’m talking about, and to whom (I suppose I’m a little overly fond of the sound of my own fingers). Plus, I often write either too late and night or too early in the morning to make sense.

It is now 12:44 at night, but I will try to actually answer what you said. On my sarcasm being over the top – you may very well be right.

On Jerry Falwell and John Calvin… hmmm. I realize that I was being sarcastic about them both, but I do understand that their is probably a qualitative difference to their approaches. I think we can all agree that Falwell’s an embarrassment. Calvin, well, I don’t know – I guess I’m mostly responding there to apostles of Calvin I’ve known who are SO concerned with nailing down how everything works that they end up being arrogant, obnoxious jerks – especially when confronted with other human beings. I mean, one determinist friend of mine, when told about a devastating hurricane in el salvador that devastated the impoverished region, killing and wounding thousands and leaving thousands more destitute, replied callously that they deserved it and that it was God’s judgement on them for rejecting on a political level the protestant church (not the catholics, mind you, because they were, in my friend’s words, “the whore of babylon”).

I don’t know enough about John Calvin to have an informed opinion, but I do know enough of his most ardent admirers, however, to feel justified in making occasional sarcastic remarks about their volition-killing theology.

Finally, as to Christ coming to save people from hell. Frick. That’s a long one. I wrote this like twelve-page deelio on my blog once describing what I think about all this. Here are some bottom lines…

One: I really don’t think it’s that much of my concern. God’s the one in the judging business, and I find it impossible to share that job without miring myself in pride. It’s enough, for me, that Christ is awesome and true and I should share that with other people.

Two: what salvation? what christ? what hell? what heaven? I realize that by saying this I’m in many ways a ventriloquist’s dummy for my generation’s consensual idiocy, but what exactly do those concepts mean? You tell me, perhaps, that it’s clear as day, straightforward, and that I should just accept it – but what am I to accept? Generations have gone by with christians, on the whole, holding ideas that we now think are silly. Are we more right, just because we came later?

It’s popular, now, to claim progressive revalation – that we now know more because God’s at work revealing more. In once sense, I believe this to be true – God is at work, revealing more. However, I think we keep growing up and learning a bit and forgetting and dying. God keeps revealing because we are, for the most part, not paying attention. I think that maybe, just maybe, this idea that we’re getting smarter is a combination of our old bedfellow, pride, with the Marxian notion of dialectical materialism.

But again, I rabbit trail. It isn’t that I don’t want to answer, it’s just that I believe in honesty above most else, and I keep catching myself taking shortcuts in argumentation. I stop to try to patch the holes and a million other holes spring up. It’s a nightmare.

What I was trying to say is that I am not sure if the way I’ve been taught to think about orthodox theology has not been based more on fear and pride than a hunger for truth. So I question it all – what salvation means, what christ was and meant, what hell is – and I end up running back and forth, barking at trees whose tops are so high I can’t even conceive of them.

I resort, in these moments, to a faith founded on a LOT of biblical instruction and reading, anecdotal evidence, experiential testament, and plain stubborn cussedness. If I’m wrong to do so – so be it.

Bottom line is that I believe that Christ came to save sinners from hell, but I’m not sure if that means exactly what I have been taught it means by the particular brand of protestantism I’ve been raised in as it’s changed over the particular twenty-seven years I’ve happened to live through in the locations and in contact with the people I’ve happened to have been around.

Because of the bible’s most often “poetic” take, if you will, on the more metaphysical concepts of “heaven”, “hell”, “salvation” and “christ’s identity”, I end up with regard to these particular issues trying to respect the mystery and stand honestly, as a finite individual, in awe of the infinite.

The more practical, “earthy” biblical concepts of social justice and love for myself, my fellow man, and creation, however, seem to me to be far less ambiguous, far less dependant on interpretation. God, the Bible, Christ, and (in the words of Bill Watterson’s Calvin) “the inscrutable exhortations of my soul”, seem to leave very little room to maneouver with regard to THESE issues.

Why is this, I find myself wondering at 1:12 in the morning? Well, perhaps because God made us, and knows just how much we’re able to rationally handle. God also knows that we’re task-oriented, relationally-defined creatures. God points an artist’s hand at the grander canvas – the “bigger” issues – to indicate to us that there is a context and a reason for the direction God would have us go. We are not meant, however, to solve these things. We are designed for wonder and for the obedience that allows God/human love to occur, and for things to be made right (redeemed, saved, etc) in the here and now.

It is folly to think that we can solve this stuff. It is wisdom to wonder at it, to humbly try to understand, but at the same time to focus on those concepts and actions that are more readily available for the comprehension and existentiality of our ridiculously limited selves.

So there you have it – my actual opinion (at least, as far as I’m capable of understanding it and communicating it so that you can understand). Hopefully, you are enlightened enough so that you can either appreciate where I’m coming from or make an informed decision to throw rocks at me.

Who knows? This late at night, I tend to lose track of what I’m saying. Normally I would have been in bed, by now, for at least four hours. If you feel attacked, or insulted, that is not my intention. For me, this is almost a game I play with words, an exercise, like doodling, that allows me to free-associate ideas and increase understanding. Thanks for the opportunity.
-- josh (Email) (URL) - 29 April '07 - 04:26

josh,
thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. i do appreciate where you’re coming from and have no desire to throw rocks. i do not feel attacked or insulted. however, i definitely have some thoughts on your thoughts. i’ll try to send you an email so we don’t have to use up any more space on juanito’s blog. don’t worry, i won’t be writing to convert you to view or anything, just to share a different perspective. thanks for your gracious reply.
-- travis (Email) (URL) - 29 April '07 - 21:45

Josh- Could you put your home address on here? I DO plan to convert you by sending you some tracks. Just kidding. I really appreciate your view. Have you read Doug Padgitt? He’ll be in Grand Rapids this wed. I hope to go see him. Just to get a glimpse at him or possibly touch his garment.
-- christinan - 30 April '07 - 23:50

“Utilize” ...That’s all I could really think of right now to express my displeasure. :) It’s your blog, I know… but the link you posted isn’t a link to anything that has anything to do with what we’re fighting.

The stereotype of terrorists being Islamic extremists is born of the reality that many terrorists are, in fact, Islamic extremists.

If you want to fight an injustice that is based entirely on misunderstanding, myths, and fear… fight the “Global Warming” nonsense. There’s certainly no need to perpetuate the falsehood that white America isn’t interested in the difference between a “Muslim” and a “Terrorist.” Puh-leeeeeeezzzz.

You can sell yourself short if you’d like, but as the self-appointed spokesperson for rich, white Americans, leave us out of your “we.”
-- Eric (Email) - 24 April '07 - 03:49

you canput me in your “we” anytime Juanito. Also, I’d like to help the rich get richer and pay you for another project. Oscar’s brother sent me $200 cash and it’s burning a hole in my pocket. Can I hire you to replace my fuel pump on the VW?
-- christian - 24 April '07 - 05:49

Christian: a fuel pump for your VW is “for your baby”???

Eric: huh? To let you know that this rich white American has thought about it, i’ll copy and past a stupidly long comment i left on Christian’s blog. Don’t read it if you’ve got ANYTHING better to do!

juanito said…

There is a passage in the Qu’ran which i take drastically out of context: “...you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them…”. I searched for instances of “kill” in an English translation of the Qu’ran, and there’s lots of stuff about not killing believers, and plenty about how if you get killed as a result of persecution or during a war against unbelievers, you will be compensated greatly.

So, there’s some kind of scriptural foundation to the idea of suicide bombing — it’s okay to kill non-believers (and fundamentalist Shia Muslims believe that Sunni’s are non-believers and vice versa) and if you die killing the enemy, you’re finna be HOOKED UP!!! And compared to the living standards in Iraq right now, with no electricity or clean drinking water, 40 virgins to boff non-stop and a life of total luxury looks pretty freaking awesome. Just the push of a detonator away!!!

So in fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, there’s a kind of worship of War and Death.

Keith talked to me about the history of Christianity compared to Islam, and Islam is about the same age as Christianity when the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades were going on. Maybe, said Keith, there’s some kind of cycle that religions go through as they mature. The Hebrews had their warlike era, led by King David and his family’s reign. But how long has it been since Jews waged holy war? Besides in Israel, but Israel is so tangled up in American religious fundamentalism and politics.

This is getting long, isn’t it?

And there’s plenty of Christian fundamentalists who idealize, if not idolize war. Onward Christian Soldiers? Sword Drills? It’s impossible to miss the military imagery in fundamentalist Christianity. The biggest demographic steadfastly supporting George W. and his war remains Evangelical Christians.

I’ve also heard it postulated that the Arab world is pissed off that the Christian part of the world made it first to the industrial revolution. So advanced technology is all from (or modeled after) historically Christian parts of the world. Along with Western (no longer Christian) technology comes Western values — hedonism, consumerism, sexual liberation — things which conservative Muslims find very threatening.

Finally (sorry, i think this is TOTALLY a rambling post) i think it’s interesting that fundamental Christians and Muslims alike seem to embrace consumerism (in Saudi Arabia, the holiest of nations, rich people drive Lamborghinis, Zondas, Buggattis, Ferraris, poor people drive Mercedes Benzes and BMWs, and we all know how rich Christians live).
-- juanito (Email) (URL) - 24 April '07 - 23:45

yea. with the new baby, Mo has to sleep in the van. It gets cold in the winter and we want to run it for a couple hours at night. The fuel pump is leaking, and though we care about MO’s warmth, wasting gas is morally wrong. I’m afraid she would have to go without heat if you can’t help. But if you’re busy it’s cool.
-- christian - 25 April '07 - 00:00

I think I qualify as low income, but I have a fancy computer, a roof to my self, a car, a belly full of food and drink, I am edukatid, cell phone, subwoofers, air conditioning, dvd, cd, ps3 (not really but it rhymes better than ps2)... so that puts me in the top 8% wealthiest people in the world! I feel so blessed… All that to say I am also part of “we”. I also would love to hear Eric come up with a compelling argument against global warming, or on second thought, no I wouldn’t.;)
-- jj - 25 April '07 - 14:16

You got your wish, Eric. See today’s post! :)
-- juanito (Email) (URL) - 25 April '07 - 22:28

i love the animation. i think it’s quite unfair that you have more talent in your little finger than i have in my enitre being when it comes to art, music, computers, or really anything else you set your mind to.
-- travis (Email) (URL) - 23 April '07 - 10:04

i went to publik skool and toorned out good. plus there are so many chicks at school to hang out with and its where i learned to fight. I had my first smoke in the bathroom two.
-- christian - 19 April '07 - 03:08

After reading Shane Claiborne’s book, The Irrestible Revolution, I am wondering how I can, in good concience, NOT send my kids to public school. It seems like it would simply perpetuate the gap between rich and poor. If I have truly made a committment to be like Jesus and have died to myself and my possessions (including family), I would be in the public schools, fighting for better education for those who have been sidelined and ignored. Wouldn’t I?
-- Linda (Email) (URL) - 19 April '07 - 13:18

Christian: i think about how kids are built by God to be knowledge sponges, and even some of the most horrifically abused and neglected kids we’ve seen at work still know stuff like how to do basic math and read and write. Although Houston can spell and write better than that one kid from the same place Gypsies are from… So with any kind of nurturing home life, i don’t think kids can help but succeed in learning most of what they teach in public school, even assuming the worst. The fact that traditional approaches work, as do weird approaches like Montessori, Waldorf, and even, um, Unschooling. Weird.

Linda: what alternative to public schools had you considered? Home schooling? Private Christian school? The home school “community” in GR exists, but i don’t think it’s a very good community compared to the kinds of community Claiborne might talk about (i still haven’t read the book yet. Can’t get it for Palm Pilot, after all).
-- juanito (Email) (URL) - 19 April '07 - 15:32

Private Christian schools make me feel icky, so no, we wouldn’t go that route. The idea of segregating Christians makes an us vs them mentality that I cannot get behind. And the GR Christian Schools website leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. Plus, oh my gosh, the moola that it costs!

No homeschooling for us, although my sister does an excellent job and her kids are well socialized and well educated. It is not me. I had such an overall great school experience (as did Andrew) that I would hate to deprive my kids of everything that comes with it, even the crappy parts.

My MIL always says, “If you take the Christian kids out of the public schools, who will be the salt and the light?” I guess that’s why her son graduated from Union. :)

I’ve looked at charter schools and assumed that I would go in that direction IF I can get both kids into the same school. Classes are usually filled on a lottery system so I’m not sure of my chances. I know that charter schools are technically public, but at the same time, they’re not.

I guess it seems hypocritical of me to live in my neighborhood and be willing to know my neighbors socially, but when it comes to education to say, “Sorry, you are not good enough for my kids.” We should talk about this in person~I think it would be interesting. Have you read Shane Claiborne’s book? We’re discussing it in our house church right now, but you can borrow it when we’re done. I think you’d find it fascinating and, if you’re like me, uncomfortable.
-- Linda (Email) (URL) - 19 April '07 - 15:43

Oh, just reread your comment that you didn’t read the book yet. You’re welcome to borrow our old-fashioned copy if you want. :)
-- Linda (Email) (URL) - 19 April '07 - 15:44

Yeah, i think Karen owns a hard-copy of it. Treeware.
-- juanito (Email) (URL) - 19 April '07 - 21:28

Um…i was not the person sitting next to Juanito. I was several rows away.
-- karen - 16 April '07 - 00:29

for the record, i was not the person sitting next to juanito either. i was several states away.

i checked out the link of rob bashing articles. i agree that those are pretty out there. if anything they serve to make a lot of what rob is teaching more attractive. however, as someone who appreciates rob but is also wary of a bit of his teaching as well as some of the “ermergent” approach to things, i have to say that he creates more problems for himself than is necessary. by being intentionally vague at points he invites attack. not that the people attacking are justified in the way they do it but i’d like to hear more rob bell supporters talking about how rob bell could improve and better serve the christian community instead of thumbing his nose at them. that may have come across as more harsh than it was intended but i think you get my point.
-- travis (Email) (URL) - 16 April '07 - 01:13

Hello,

Travis, you said, “as someone who appreciates rob but is also wary of a bit of his teaching as well as some of the “ermergent” approach to things, i have to say that he creates more problems for himself than is necessary. by being intentionally vague at points he invites attack.”

Friend, please know that this is the Emergent way. Because of “embracing mystery” they can’t risk being too dogmatic as postmodernism is about everyone being free to believe as they wish, even if it is contradictory.

Let me also say that I’m not a part of the religious right and I don’t condone legislating morality. But that said, one needs to understand that Rob is just as critical of reformed Biblical theology and the doctrines of grace – such as election – as I am of his flawed theology.

His quiet arrogance, consistent with the Emergent rebellion against the Bible as a whole, hides it from most people. However, as evidenced by my ministries – literally given to me by Christ – Rob and the Emergent boys aren’t fooling God. peace.
-- Ken Silva (Email) (URL) - 16 April '07 - 17:52

ken, i don’t know you so i will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren’t intentionally trying to sound like a condescending jerk. based on the reading i’ve done on your website leads me to believe that you need to spend some more time studying and reflecting on matthew 7:1-6. your reductionism, and ad hominem, slanderous attacks are precisely the sort of things that are driving thousands of burned out, disgruntled christians to the emerging church. yes, i have plenty of issues with rob bell’s teaching. however, i’m not willing to attack his character when i’ve never had a chance to sit and talk with the man and know where his heart is. even if i had that opportunity and still disagreed with him on tons of things i would hope that i would be mature enough as well as loving enough to treat him with respect as a fellow human being created in the image of the Creator. i know enough about myself that i’m not comfortable throwing stones at others so freely. while i know myself that well, but i don’t know you that well. i’m sure in real life you’re a nice guy. i imagine that you are very loving towards your family and that you have been able to encourage many people in personal interactions. however, online none of these things come across. please consider how you are a part of the problem and start by changing yourself. if you need to correct rob bell, practice charity and grace.
-- travis (Email) (URL) - 16 April '07 - 22:58

Wow, Travis. You’re the blog-comment-response-NINJA!!! You’re my hero.
-- juanito (Email) (URL) - 16 April '07 - 23:42

If anybody reads my comment before Juanito has a chance to deltet it, please disregard it as third shift nonsense.
-- Christian - 17 April '07 - 05:27

christian,
i had purposely ignored the “literally given to me by Christ” comment. again, in an attempt to give the benefit of the doubt, i’m going to assume that all he means is that he feels strongly called by the Lord to be doing what he’s doing. in that sense i can say that Christ has given me a ministry in new zealand. however, if he means that he’s been literally given his ministry by Christ in the same way that say peter or paul were given their minnistries by the risen Lord, well then he has some beliefs that are just as distorted and dangerous as anything he’s accusing the emergent fellas of. if that is what he means then further conversation will be pointless because he will be convinced in his own mind that what he’s doing and how he’s doing it are directly inspired by the Lord. he won’t be able to reason like a normal person. so yeah, i hope that’s not what he means.
-- travis (Email) (URL) - 17 April '07 - 10:46

good point. Thanks for taking the high road bro. I wonder if that was just a sneak attack and a quick retreat. We’ll never hear form him again. A conversation probably would do no good anyways I suppose.
-- christian - 19 April '07 - 00:08

I wonder why Ken doesn’t allow for people to post responses on his blog, and yet he’s so quick to respond on other people’s blogs when they criticize him??? I think you’re right, Christian, a conversation would do no good – especially since it really doesn’t seem like he’s open to having one.
-- Steve (Email) (URL) - 19 April '07 - 10:51

Soooo… yeah… maybe I could use a little clarification on the “genuinely, fundamentally, pretty much okay” part. My greatest private victory came when I honestly realized that I am not my own, but belong in every way to Christ. The times where I’m in touch with that concept are the only times I find genuine purpose.

The times I think of myself as “okay” outside of that framework lead directly (and pretty much immediately) to me being a narcissistic, prideful idiot in every way. God is glorified in me… and that’s as good as it gets. It’s not that I’m okay… it’s that I’m His, and somehow He’s okay with that.
-- Eric (Email) - 17 April '07 - 20:08

For anyone desiring a fair-minded discussion of current events, I highly recommend “Left Right and Center” produced by radio station KCRW. It features thoughtful commentary and rational conversation from liberals, conservatives, progressives and moderates, covering a lot of substance in one half-hour per week.
-- Dave - 12 April '07 - 23:03

Are you serious, Juanito? You want everyone to use the same boring words and never open their thesaurus?! Gah. I love finding new words and expanding my vocabulary. I guess I just want to sound all smart and crap.
-- Linda (Email) (URL) - 13 April '07 - 10:47

Yeah, as i was thinking this morning about “cognizant” and “aware”, i realized that they’re not EXACT synonyms. I mean, you wouldn’t call a sentient being “self cognizant”. But along with “actualize” and “utilize”, and new silly ways of pronouncing words like HERR-us-ment instead of harASSment and tr-OW-ma instead of trauma… grr.

I guess my issues is with people who sacrifice clarity in speech in order to make themselves seem more elite. I’m all for expanding your vocabulary, but only if you’re adding words with new meanings, words like synchronous or platitude.
-- juanito - 13 April '07 - 13:25

OK,
this one I will comment on. I’m not eloquent enough to comment on your last political thread.

Juanito; I think you have an interesting combination of a great system, a bad system, and our current system.

Your first point — Elect a “committee of democratically elected Very Smart People” — is what our current system is supposed to be. The average bloke on the street doesn’t typically have the time or the knowledge to make broad decisions affecting a whole state or country full of people. So, you can choose someone more qualified than yourself to represent you and make decisions on your behalf. Someone like George Washington (who really was very smart on a rather broad range of topics) could represent you & your fellow state/federal citizens. You could trust them to make the best choice for you & your fellow citizens.
Unfortunately; US politics has evolved into electing people who are skilled at only TWO things; (1) campaigning and (2) politics. By and large they are no longer trusted to be “Renaissance men” or women skilled at understanding the complex interrelationships of all their decisions. Instead we reduce each decision to a lobbyist group’s sound byte and vote on individual issues.

Your second point (as I am defining it here) — delegating that elected power to convicted felons — seems possibly a good idea, yet potentially a very bad idea. Even a relatively good felon could be tempted to become greedy and, well, basically behave like our current politicians. But they would have an even lower threshold of what they deem acceptable behavior. Also; some of the very smart people on the democratically elected committee could also become corrupt and only appoint persons (felons) that would do their bidding. Again, not unlike our current system.

The assumption that running a state or country is a deterrent, and people would Not want to run a state or country, seems naïve. (sorry). It would be a deterrent to me and you, but others see the possibility for power. Where there is power there is money. Where there is money there are crimes & felons.
Of course, the higher class criminals just go straight for the power. We call them politicians.
-- bread - 10 April '07 - 13:29

hmmm,
that came out more negative and cynical than I intended.

...if I had a blog it would be called “The Cynical Optimist” since I an really an optimist at heart, but I’ve become rather cynical on the outside.
Or, maybe I would call my blog “Lard Arse”. (Can I write that here?)
Or, “The Bread Box”.
..but I digress.

I read a quote explaining that all politicians are not as bad or as corrupt as we often perceive them. It said:

“Ninety percent of all politicians give the rest a bad name.”
-- bread - 10 April '07 - 13:35

so if i understand you correctly, basically you’re just suggesting that we form a government where our politicians commit their crimes BEFORE they get into office.
-- travis (Email) (URL) - 10 April '07 - 23:09

ha ha ha
-- jj - 11 April '07 - 13:54

Tony: i think your critiques of convictocracy are dead on. The elected Very Smart People might very well become the new corrupt politicians with the appointed politicians being mere puppets. However, you should be able to set up some checks and balances to keep that from happening…

But really the whole idea is just silly. But as a thought exercise, it’s interesting that we can even entertain the notion that a system where convicted criminals could do the job usually reserved for society’s upper crust. But it just occurred to me that one other thing you see floating to the top: scum.
-- juanito (Email) (URL) - 11 April '07 - 14:10

Oh yeah, if i had a serious political or religious blog instead of just my vanity/posterity thing, i think “The Cheerful Cynic” would be a good name. I like “Cynical Optimist” too.
-- juanito (Email) (URL) - 11 April '07 - 14:11

how ‘bout, “the optical cynimist”?
-- travis (Email) (URL) - 11 April '07 - 23:38

Nice.
-- jj - 04 April '07 - 20:16

Heheh… you’re so funny.

“Not to mention that if there was a democracy in Iraq, the first thing they’d do, according to the polls, is kick us right out.”*

• poll taken among 37 terrorists stating, if given the choice, they would “prefer the US leave Iraq” conducted in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

I like it when you write about these type things. “Success in Iraq” is a joke. It bugs me when W (or anybody else) talks about “winning”.

“However, the turmoil in Iraq has been caused in great part by our actions, so we are honor bound to try to fix it”.

Are you talking the about U.S. giving SH mustard gas here or hanging him for using it?

I heard Campollo talk about how our debt for the war is borrowed mostly from China. So my daughters and their kids will be paying that back forever. I’ll do my part and bye a pair of Nike’s tomorrow. We just adopted a child through compassion international who works there. Maybe I can get a discount. I feel so negative and cynical.
-- Christian - 04 April '07 - 23:48

let’s see, do i get involved with this or don’t i? aarrgghh, okay. eric, do you really think you have a good understanding of this whole entire, complex, crappy. messed up situation because you have talked to soldier? i have talked to several soldiers. several of my old youth group students are in or have been in iraq and i have another friend who just left the air force after nine years. they all have different opinions on what’s going on so the fact that you have talked to a soldier means nothing. i’m sorry, that’s just not the case.

this war has nothing to do with national defense. the result of this war is a more dangerous situation for our nation. we have inflamed the anti-american sentiments and militaristic zeal among our enemies and our reputation throughout the world is absolute crap even with our allies. we have no credibility with anyone who matters and yet the current administration attempts to negotiate with the assumption that they possess the moral high ground, which they don’t. the levels of corruption within bush’s administration is shocking. if democrats tried to get away with half of the crap that these republicans have everyone would be calling for impeachment. and yet for some reason the christian right has no problem supporting a group of lying, power-drunk, megalomaniacs. i don’t get it.

okay, i’m obviously worked up so i’m just going to stop.
-- travis (Email) (URL) - 05 April '07 - 00:31

So, all of you who have opinions – are they based on FACT?? And how do you know that the “FACTS” that you are basing them on are really and truly TRUE? \n\nYOU DON’T. None of us has access to governmental/political truth. None. Not one. None. Get it?? You are all talking through your preferred ‘elbow’. “I talked to a soldier’!! I have too. Several.\n\nYou are duped, all of you. It is my opinion, and my stated and preferred postition, (excepting now of course), to stay out of the arena where you are at present (the War and W arena) since I am unable to improve the situation except with prayer. I do not intend to sound high and mighty. I just intend to make my own life more pleasant by focussing on that which is of value, and whining and spatting about Iraq will not produce tbat result.\n\nGo Idealists! But do not think that any one of you is right. Sadly.
-- mummu (Email) - 05 April '07 - 07:17

Right or wrong, polls are vital to modern politics. And there are more respectable polls than the silly one you cited, Eric. Jeez.
-- juanito - 05 April '07 - 08:22

He he he, mummy that was great! I love it… however, here are some facts.

http://www.drivingvotes.org/bushfacts.sh..

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20041108/fa..

http://www.peacetakescourage.com/FactsAb..
-- jj - 05 April '07 - 15:52

hmmm…. i didn’t think that i was being idealistic. sorry if i was. i thought my point about talking with soldiers was exactly the point you raised – they all have different opinions. that the bush administration is corrupt is, i think, more than opinion.
-- travis (Email) (URL) - 05 April '07 - 21:56

Okay… I’ll show some restraint. :) The “more respectable” poll you cited says absolutely nothing about whether or not the citizens of Iraq do or do not want American intervention or support. It merely says they do not want American neighbors. I am a big fan of nuclear power plants, but I certainly don’t want one in my backyard.

The same poll article does say, “...since the support for secular attitudes has gained considerable ground among the Sunnis, al-Qaeda may find it more difficult to recruit among this group in Iraq.” Hmmmm…. probably some sneaky Republican editor slipped that in… because, really… what could Iraq and al-Qaeda possibly have in common?

Again… it is my opinion that this war is about the integrity of the USD as a reserve currency. That being said, I think it would be utterly depressing to be unable or unwilling to see any positive motive or outcome from it. Some good things are happening in Iraq, and some good things have happened in the last 6 years here in the USA under GWB. Admitting you have a problem seeing them is the first step. Let me know when you’re ready for step #2. :)
-- Eric (Email) - 05 April '07 - 22:50

Juanito. I am totally going to disagree with your mom. I hope we can still be friends. “It is my opinion, and my stated and preferred postition, (excepting now of course), to stay out of the arena where you are at present (the War and W arena) since I am unable to improve the situation except with prayer”. I think this is the problem. To think that we can somehow change what is going on in the world through prayer alone rejects our role of redemption in our world. Prayer will not change God’s mind about stopping evil in this world. “Allright… I guess I’ll take care of it…” God calls us to action when we see injustice. I believe that discussing these issues is a key part of stopping injustice in the world.

Eric- I spend most of my time ont he other side of the fence I think. I honestly would love to hear (seriously it will be good for me) some GOOD things W has done. I am happy to leave slants out of it to make things easier, but ask you do the same. The one thing I can think of is the admins new stance on global warming. (But even that’s bitter sweet for me because I feel it was politically motivated. But non-the-less, it was good all-around).
-- christian - 06 April '07 - 05:30

eric,
if you go back to some of our earlier discussions on juanito’s blog you will see that i’ve never taken the stance that w’s administration is a complete failure. there are some good things that have happened in the u.s. and in iraq during his time in office. however, just because some good has come out of all this doesn’t mean that it’s all good or even mostly good. there are many bad things that have happened in the u.s. (what’s our deficit again?) and in iraq as a result of decisions and policies made by his administration. it also doesn’t change the fact that his administration has been rocked with scandal after scandal. bush has reacted to these by blaming everyone else. when he takes personal responsibility for make extremely poor staff decisions and failing to keep a hold of the good people he chose (does anyone else wonder where colin powell went) my respect for him will increase drastically. from what i’ve heard and seen i’m sure bush is a nice guy. i’d probably enjoy having dinner with. i just regret that i ever voted for him and i’m excited that he will soon be out of office.
-- travis (Email) (URL) - 06 April '07 - 14:52

Some AWESOME stuff happened during the Bush administration! We bought a house; Houston, Katrina, and Zane were born; we paid off all our student loans and credit card debt; we found a church we love; we made a bunch of friends we still love.

And i believe i voted for Nader both times.
-- juanito (Email) (URL) - 06 April '07 - 16:51

Okay, sorry Eric. I was being silly. In all seriousness, please list the successes of W’s administration. I’ll start with “public schools are more friendly to fundamentalist Christian thought”. You do the next one.
-- juanito (Email) (URL) - 07 April '07 - 22:48

I listened to Campolo last night. He said another good thing about Bush was that he got serious about trying to track down all the missing Nukes that the Soviets lost. Not sure if that can be substantiated, but if so, I can agree thath that is good.
-- christian - 09 April '07 - 00:31

I am glad that I am disagreed with, since it is in that place that growth can come. I have always been naive and “black and white”, rather than a deep thinker. However, I see my role in politics as minimal. As Tom says “If you want to be in office, I do not want you in office” We all know that every admin has and will have scandal after scandal. there is no political power which has ever been able to remain just and righteous. Even Moses had difficulties. Coursr he did. He was a man.

(Why did my post keep saying n n ?)

Even the websites taht you suggest are just that : websites. HOW do I know that they are not just as scandalous and ‘fixed’ as any other website? I would like to improve my ‘seed sowing’ count. Help people see that Jesus is the only redeemer and saviour. Without that in place, without more believers, we are doomed. I think we are ‘doomed’ anyway. Death is an inevitability, but my eternal destiny is secure – heaven. How can we get enough people saved so that the political scandals can cease? I am thinking that one generation is not enough time. A new political generation grows up and does scandals another way, in ‘opposition’ to the previous guys. Aureol over and out.
-- mummu (Email) - 10 April '07 - 08:34

Juanito’s mom- I agree with you that there will be scandals and more scandals because human nature is to please onself and take at the expense of others. I am saying I think that “W“s admin has had more than its share of scandals though. Also, I don’t think that the key is getting more people saved thus limiting the amount of scandals. I don’t think our job is to get people saved anyhow and even if more people do get saved, I see more scandals (maybe it’s just my warped perception of Christianity) which are more repugnant. Thanks for being Juanito’s mom. I really like him and respect him. You did a great job of raising him (from what I can see).
-- christian - 10 April '07 - 23:18