Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (10611)	4/6/2001 5:23:06 AM
From: Clappy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Dear friends and foes of President George W. Bush: Just this week President Bush has decided not to support the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is a world wide treaty designed to help prevent global warming by reducing the amount of CO2 emissions throughout the world. Many believe that supporting this treaty would be a step in the right direction towards ensuring avoidance of environmental catastrophe. Certain policies of George W. Bush are acceptable or perhaps tolerable. In my opinion, this is not one of them. If you are interested in voicing your opinion to President Bush about his decision to not support the Kyoto Protocol Please cut and paste the message below into a new E-mail and send it to: PRESIDENT BUSH: president@whitehouse.gov Should this worthy cause inspire you enough to commit it to paper, you can mail it to: President George Walker Bush The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 In addition would you please send a copy of this open letter to your friends or relatives who might be interested in helping this cause. -- Dear President Bush, I call on you, as President of our great country, not to betray the Kyoto Protocol. The United States must live up to its commitment to the UN negotiations to prevent global warming. Destroying the Kyoto Protocol puts the US into a position of environmental isolationism and makes us responsible for climate catastrophe. The US has the highest per capita CO2 emissions in the world. People around the world already faced with the first signs of climate change, suffering from floods and hurricanes, expect our country to be in the forefront of tackling climate change. An enormous potential of creativity, innovation and efficiency is there to be harvested once we have decided to really reduce CO2 emission. If you fail to reverse your decision to kill the Kyoto Protocol, future generations will suffer greatly. President Bush, the science is proven and the international political will is there to tackle climate change. Allow it to happen. Please do not reverse a policy that was designed to better our world. Our future depends on it. Sincerely, (your name here) ============ Thanks for your help. -Clappy

To: thames_sider who wrote (10611)	4/6/2001 11:49:03 AM
From: Greg or e	Respond to of 82486

"logic is rational" Did you come to this conclusion all by yourself or did you have help? You say my arguments are circular? Btw They are not "leaving aside the Biblical quotes, I'd contend that it is important to do what is right... and that no godly presence is needed in order to know this, as has been shown here earlier. Simply 'knowing', on its own, is insufficient - both are a requirement (is it even possible to consistently do 'right' without reference to some standard, internal or external, and hence without knowing it?)." Just how important is it to do what is right? You are correct to say that if no standard exists then the term "right" is essentially meaningless. Since you wish to lay aside the biblical standard, I would be very interested to know the standard you would choose to replace it with? Since you are not apparently willing to relinquish the quaint notion that "it is important to do what is right"perhaps you would share with us, the basis you would use to distinguish between right and wrong, and exactly why it would be important to choose right rather than wrong? "Meanwhile (back at the ranch) he also defines righteousness as believing in Jesus, which IMO rather renders his argument circular." Brackets mine No he doesn't. He says, "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law... This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" The righteousness that is from God, comes through faith in Jesus Christ. "Righteousness" (DIKAIOSUNE, GREEK) is defined in Vines Expository Dictionary as "the character or quality of being right or just; it was formerly spelled rightwiseness which clearly expresses the meaning. It is used to denote an attribute of God.....that which is consistent with His own nature and promises" All He is saying is that we have failed to meet the standard of God's righteousness. "Sin" is an archers term that carries the meaning of missing the target. Observing the Law, or hitting the target, if you like, only helps if you never miss. Jesus never missed, and in never missing, He met God's requirements for us, but it must be received through the agency of faith. So he,(Paul) does not define righteousness as believing in Jesus. Rather he says, your own righteousness is insufficient to meet the standard, if you wish to have access to a righteousness that is sufficient, then there is only one way that can be accomplished. That is to place your faith and trust in the one person who not only met God's perfect standard, but laid His own life down as a substitute, to pay the penalty for our Sin. At the cross justice and mercy have both been met. The Cross is not circular, it rises up to bridge the gulf between man and God, and it reaces out to embrace all who will come in faith. Greg

To: thames_sider who wrote (10611)	4/6/2001 11:49:30 AM
From: Greg or e	Respond to of 82486

"logic is rational" Did you come to this conclusion all by yourself or did you have help? You say my arguments are circular? Btw They are not "leaving aside the Biblical quotes, I'd contend that it is important to do what is right... and that no godly presence is needed in order to know this, as has been shown here earlier. Simply 'knowing', on its own, is insufficient - both are a requirement (is it even possible to consistently do 'right' without reference to some standard, internal or external, and hence without knowing it?)." Just how important is it to do what is right? You are correct to say that if no standard exists then the term "right" is essentially meaningless. Since you wish to lay aside the biblical standard, I would be very interested to know the standard you would choose to replace it with? Since you are not apparently willing to relinquish the quaint notion that "it is important to do what is right"perhaps you would share with us, the basis you would use to distinguish between right and wrong, and exactly why it would be important to choose right rather than wrong? "Meanwhile (back at the ranch) he also defines righteousness as believing in Jesus, which IMO rather renders his argument circular." Brackets mine No he doesn't. He says, "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law... This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" The righteousness that is from God, comes through faith in Jesus Christ. "Righteousness" (DIKAIOSUNE, GREEK) is defined in Vines Expository Dictionary as "the character or quality of being right or just; it was formerly spelled rightwiseness which clearly expresses the meaning. It is used to denote an attribute of God.....that which is consistent with His own nature and promises" All He is saying is that we have failed to meet the standard of God's righteousness. "Sin" is an archers term that carries the meaning of missing the target. Observing the Law, or hitting the target, if you like, only helps if you never miss. Jesus never missed, and in never missing, He met God's requirements for us, but it must be received through the agency of faith. So he,(Paul) does not define righteousness as believing in Jesus. Rather he says, your own righteousness is insufficient to meet the standard, if you wish to have access to a righteousness that is sufficient, then there is only one way that can be accomplished. That is to place your faith and trust in the one person who not only met God's perfect standard, but laid His own life down as a substitute, to pay the penalty for our Sin. At the cross justice and mercy have both been met. The Cross is not circular, it rises up to bridge the gulf between man and God, and it reaches out to embrace all who will come in faith. Greg