The Salesmen of the Green New Deal

You have outlined certain very important aspects of your background, but this does not tell the entire story. Everyone's experience varies, as do the reasons for certain people leaving. While this is respected, it does not give you the standing to brand others who haven't forsaken Christianity as perverted, ignorant or belonging to a cult. Also, Christians are not "trying to determine the behavior and beliefs of others" when they say that they do not believe in the tenets of the environmental movement, and that society should be free from the dictates of such a movement that seeks to tell us what we can and cannot use.
I'm sorry that with this Christian background, you have chosen to leave it behind and serve another god and another cause. I will not be joining you.

I do not brand people, I brand Fundamental Evangelical Christianity as common in the US as a perversion of Christianity and a denigration of the teachings of Jesus and the Goats found in Matthew 25.And I'm sorry you decided to remain willfully ignorant despite all the kind and generous help you've been offered hear.You and yours are the greatest threat the US has faced since the Pilgrims.And the facts and evidence displayed in this thread ARE the reality you have chose to ignore.

A million "why's" can always be asked as to what is or isn't done, in any given situation. Do not expect any explanation.To say that people should be free to use halons doesn't suggest that they should always be used in every circumstance. Therefore, your attempt to cite the many circumstances in which it wasn't used as an indicator as to whether it should be allowed, is both illogical and insincere.You have also cited a number of health warnings about halon, which in the context of this discussion means that you are citing them as proof that it is best not to use them. This of course is silly. There is always a risk with virtually every chemical, product or medicine ever devised. Halon 1301 has been shown to be safe enough to use, even in a tightly enclosed space where oxygen is more limited.You contribute to the degeneration of a conversation when you try to fault the illustration in order to disprove the point.

Again, learn to read.Halon would not have worked PERIOD in the instance of the 9-11 Twin Towers.Halon and its use or effectiveness is still irrelevant to the topic of this thread or the FACT supported by ALL of the evidence that has been so kindly given to you in this thread that Global Warming is caused by human actions.Try to read with some minimal comprehension.

You may or may not agree with all aspects of "fundamental evangelical Christianity". This is not a valid argument against those both inside and outside Christianity that defend the freedom to use CFCs, which have been implicated falsely under the tenets of your earth worship.

Boy, talk about not getting it. Jar was saying the exact opposite. I'll try to approximate what Jar was actually saying, which I think is that it is you and fundamentalist evangelicals in general who have perverted Christianity by using God as your excuse for imposing your religious views on others regarding a wide variety of things, from the environment to gender to marriage to abortion. Aren't the "tenets of the environmental movement" to just follow the science? Isn't the weather the nation and the world is experiencing at this very moment evidence of the general trends that science said would happen if we didn't get greenhouse gases under control? Hasn't ignoring environmental concerns led to all kinds of problems, such as polluted groundwater that forces people in some areas to use only bottled water for drinking and cooking? "Such a movement"? You mean a movement that seeks to keep the planet livable? What is it you're seeking to use? Are you seeking to dump pollutants willy nilly into the atmosphere, waterways and ground? Do you want to burn more coal? How about a nice nuclear waste dump next door to your house? Do you want to drive a bigger pickup or SUV and send even more greenhouse gases up into the stratosphere to make the planet even hotter?And why are you singling out environmental efforts for telling you what to do? What about all the traffic laws that tell when you can go and when you must stop, as well how fast you can go. What about all the building codes that tell you how many studs you need or that you must have GFCI outlets in the bathrooms and how insulated it must be and how the plumbing must be vented and on and on? What about fire codes that tell you when you can burn on your own property? Are you against all these kinds of constraints, too? You have it all wrong. I think jar might agree that your brand of Christianity has left God.--Percy

It was very logical and extremely sincere and very much on the mark. It was a rebuttal of your claims that halon remains essential, among them that had it been available in 2001 the World Trade Center towers would not have collapsed. It is the height of irony that someone who has never quoted the text he's responding to, who responds to less than a quarter of the messages to him, who ignores rebuttals and responds by merely repeating what was just rebutted, who never supports his claims with evidence, and who has never provided a single link, is making accusations of degenerating a discussion.--Percy

This is yet another example of trying to dispute the practical validity of the illustration to disprove the point.
The reality is that you and others have not demonstrated any valid evidence that man is responsible for "global warming", because there is none. Concocted evidence has been used in defense of this movements narrative since its inception, and computer generated models have been used for that purpose since their introduction in 1985 by Wolfgang Seidler.
The fact that this "evidence" is not accepted does not make one ignorant, belonging to a cult, or unable to read or think.

It's you who's mixing science and religion. It was you who made a number of very specific accusations that those committed to protecting the environment were abandoning God. You're right that Christianity can't be used as an argument in favor of destroying the planet's environment, but it was you who first introduced that very argument. For example, here's what you said in Message 1: Please end this lying for Christ and let the blame for weaponizing religion against the environment rest where it belongs: on you.--Percy

"Boy, talk about not getting it. Jar was saying the exact opposite. I'll try to approximate what Jar was actually saying, which I think is that it is you and fundamentalist evangelicals in general who have perverted Christianity by using God as your excuse for imposing your religious views on others regarding a wide variety of things, from the environment to gender to marriage to abortion."Are you trying to do Jar's thinking and speaking for her?

Halon and Jesus? ffs We're arguing with imbeciles, why?

You've quoted nothing and I'm sure no one has any idea what "illustration" you're referring to. The actual reality is that you're a liar for Christ because such evidence has been presented to you in multiple messages by multiple people. For just one example see my Message 113, to which you've yet to respond. You can't make evidence go away simply by refusing to acknowledge it. This is just you making stuff up. You haven't offered any evidence ever in this thread. You might be the only participant that's true of. The only reasons you've given for rejecting the evidence for climate change is that you're a Christian and that efforts to counter climate change are telling you what to do. In effect you're saying, "Hey, God's on my side (trust me on that), I'm right, I don't need no evidence."--Percy

Nice quotation marks. Click on the "Peek" button to see one way quoting can be done here. See dBCode Help for the details.I'm trying to interpret simple English for you. Do you have any comments on what Jar actually said rather than your misinterpretation?--Percy

"It's you who's mixing science and religion."That's right, and there has never been a posting made against it."It was you who made a number of very specific accusations that those committed to protecting the environment were abandoning God.
You're right that Christianity can't be used as an argument in favor of destroying the planet's environment, but it was you who first introduced that argument."No, these comments are just silly now. Go back and read the postings again; You won't find anything here against preserving the environment.
If you really knew much about Christianity, you would know that Christianity hold's stewardship of the environment as very important.

quote:

---

If you really knew much about Christianity, you would know that Christianity hold's stewardship of the environment as very important

---

So Christianity AGREES with the tenets of the environmentalist movement. But you say you don’t.