May I drive an SUV and eat a hamburger ?

What leftists are talking up socialism. The way I see it Consuming large amounts of oil is unAmerican and dangerous. It makes us more dependent on the Moslems in the middle East and makes further war probable. Now if Reagan hadn't shut down our synthetic fuel program things might be different now. But he did in an extremely short sighted move.

 

Well I for one don't know which is worse the lefties talking up socialism or the righties talking up public private partnerships. I'm starting to think the righties haven't caught on to how leftie like they've become. And the lefties? They just "like totally wierd me out man". It's a sad thing to behold indeed.

Hold the pickles please.

 

So...who gets to decide what constitutes "large?" Obama?

Furthermore...if we'd get busy drilling where we know there's lots of oil, and building a refinery or three, we wouldn't be dependent on Muslims anyway. But...it appears our leadership isn't interested in that independence. :tear: Er...and I mean both parties there...because they're both responsible.

 

Sorry this is just not correct. Failing to drill for oil makes us dependent on overseas oil. Not the amount of use. Unless we drill for our own resources no matter how little we use we will still be dependent on foreign oil.

 

I'm all for recycling - paper bags, paperbacks, I use cloth bags instead of paper when I can. I encourage the kids in my classes to throw their papers in the recycling bin and not in the trash bin. I resell, I buy resell - I'm happy to give you my store addresses

It's my choice though.

AND don't tell me what I can and can't eat! I'm sick to death of that! This year I walked into school and was told we were now nut free! Well just great! I can't eat gluten - which is in as many things (or more) than nut products, I can't eat dairy. I CAN eat nuts, but not during the school day. One of the few things I can have without restriction is restricted. I do understand the reasoning, but please -

 

double post

 

I am sorry to hear of your job loss!

OH>>>>

YOU mean nuts like peanuts, cashews, etc.

I thought since it went nut free, you lost your job.

Well, look at it this way Bitsy, at least Obama can't come to your school!

 

The obedient Christian takes into consideration the effects of his actions on the world. If owning an SUV, a non-necessity, causes needless damage to God's creation, then the Christian should not own one. If eating hamburgers, again a non-necessity, indirectly stimulates the destruction of rain-forest to create more grazing land for more cattle, then the Christian should cut back on the burgers.

The world is not our private gold mine or ash tray. We need to balance our "wants" with what is best for the world and best for others.

Based solely on Mr. Obama's single statement, I see nothing particularly objectionable to it. It strikes me as the statement of a responsible citizen of the world.

 

A reader will see your statement here as an assertion that I am misguided when I say....

So the obedient Christian isn't concerned about the effect of his actions on the world?

 

Does the obedient Christian think about the effects of his actions on the rest of the world or does he not?

Any and all are invited to answer.

 

You go girl! :applause: :laugh: :wavey:

 

Oh, my goodness.

So....now you can decide that a certain vehicle is "not a necessity?" Maybe it's like a single mom in my church, just scraping by...she bought a 10-year old Isuzu. Why? Because she could afford it, and she has 3 kids. But that's "not a necessity."

And so....now hamburgers are evil. Why? Because Osama and Andre have deemed it so. Not because of Scripture, logic, or good science...but just because it offends their sensibilities. Is food a necessity? Yep...but only the food approved by our caretakers.

Last time I checked, we practiced freedoms in America. Perhaps Myanmar would be better to your liking if you wish the government to be our nannies.

 

It may be true that in some limited cases, an SUV is indeed a necessity. I will grant that. But I suggest that in the majority of cases it is not. And despite what "freedoms" your American law and culture may give you, we are citizens of another Kingdom first and foremost. And if (please read my exact words!) buying SUVs and eating hamburgers has a secondary impact in the rest of the world, in terms of damaging God's creation, directly or indirectly, or otherwise hurts people elsewhere, then the obedient Christian will set the American consitution aside and realize that his right to pursue happiness is subject to limitations imposed by obedience to Kingdom values.

And Jesus was very interested in establishing His Kingdom values in government. You guys want to concede government to secular values and kick God out. If you look at Acts, Paul was continually rebuking governing bodies - telling them that it was their responsibility to implement the Kingdom of God.

I am happy to argue the Scriptures on this - they are quite clear - God claims all of the earth as His own. And this includes the governmental institutions. And the church has the responsibility to rebuke goverments and encourage them to adopt Kingdom values.

And it is not a Kingdom to treat the world like your own playground, indulging in excessive consumerism to the detriment of others. So "freedom" in the Scriptural sense is an entirely different concept than secular concept of freedom.

I think that Mr. Obama's statement was really a statement about acting in the interests of global welfare, that's all. We do not have a guaranteed right to use as much fuel as we darn well please. We do not have a right to damage God's creation anymore than than we have to (e.g. by gobbling down hamburgers fuellling global deforestation to support more cows).

Well, perhaps your constitution gives you those rights.

But we are citizens of the family God, first and foremost.

 

Then, we disagree about Mr. Obama's intentions.

And our constitution doesn't give us any rights. It recognizes rights endowed by the Creator. Big difference.

And yes.....we do have the privilege of using more than we need. Should we? Well...not in a damaging or wasteful sense (on that we can agree). However, when one begins to use junk science or stupid logic to define (or re-define) "need" or "excess" or "wasteful" or whatever, then we have problems...

Case in point: The Democratic National Convention has very stringent rules regarding the catering of its meals. One requirement: All disposable plasticware must be compostable. Now, that sounds mighty green....until you realize that this stuff is made in China, and must be shipped in fuel-guzzling big boats over here. The "carbon credits" saved by using the compostable stuff is more than offset by spending the fuel to get it here. That's not green....that's quite brown.

But we do not live in a nanny state...nor should we. I don't want, or need, the government to tell me what to eat, or if I can mow my lawn after 5 p.m., or what kind of car I can and cannot drive. We fought in the 1770's to escape such a regime.

 

It seems to me that when Jesus was done feeding the five thousand, he shouldn't have had twelve baskets full of the leftovers. He wasn't being a very good steward, very wasteful, good thing Al Gore wasn't there to rebuke him.

 

Or Andre to accuse Him of being a disobedient Christian.