Alright, the big thing here is to ask for the prayer. I cannot discuss details of what is happening because I have been asked not to (not even I am supposed to know). What I can say is that we suspect one of my uncles may be the victim of foul play by his astranged wife... It is a long story, and I cannot go into it here, especially considering we do not know for sure what is happening, but PLEASE, my brothers and sister, PLEASE pray that whatever is happening, God would bring it to light and that justice would be done. I thank you all, and I'll give details as they become available.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

By Peter Schweizer
Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."
ON DEADLINE: Your thoughts?

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.

Posted 8/9/2006 9:57 PM ET

I agree with the two above. The Bible tells us not to commit murder. But I believe that a command to make every attempt to save, to preserve the life of others is also implied. Both blood donation and organ donation (And I'll add that one can even donate a kidney and bone marrow, at least, while alive. This would fall under 'organ donation'.) save the lives of our brothers and sisters, of people who need it.

As it is, there is not enough of this happening and many are losing their lives because of it. No, we are not to harm our bodies. I believe this means we are not to smoke, to drink heavily, or even something as simple as getting a tattoo. These things harm the body, irreparably in some cases. However, donating organs after death, or blood/organs during life do not harm the body. And in many cases, they can fulfill that implied command to preserve the life of another.

I think filtering is up to we as individuals. Mary, while I can understand your indignation, I must point out that the government has very little power to censor what you can view over the air waves, constitutionally speaking.

We need to be very careful in asking the government to legislate morality. In cases such as homosexuality, abortion, 1st ammendment cases, etc., then there is great reason for such actions, because of the impact they will have on our country... In cases like what you see on telivision, I think it is better that we as individuals filter the programming for ourselves. What is appropriate for one individual may not be for another... And so while I think you have the right idea, it really isn't a practical one.

If you don't have the channel filtering option, there is also the option of using the V-Chip that comes pre-installed on most newer sets. That at least will control, to some degree, the kind of programming that can be viewed without your direct consent.

Anyway... Just my two cents.

It's an accurate assesment.

"Don't you dare build those nukes or we'll draft a harshly-worded letter against you!"

I think that pretty much sums it up. XD

Thanks for the link, Dreamweaver. I wish you would keep updating that thread as it was quite interesting. But I understand if your responsibilities as a mod prevent you from doing so.

Thanks for the input, Pastor Roger. I always look forward to seeing what you have to say on such matters.

I agree that it is not a Biblical doctrine. I guess that's why it disturbs me to see a few otherwise wonderful Christians falling into its snare.

I totally agree with that last statement, Tina. However, I don't know enough about CU to agree with your first or not. That's why I'm asking. I want to find out as much as I can from a Biblical perspective.

Alright... Firstly, in case any red flags were raised by the title of this thread, I am NOT speaking of traditional, polytheistic universalism (That is, 'everyone worships the same god in their own way and everyone will be allowed into heaven in the end because a loving god would never send anyone to hell...' mentality.)

Actually, what I am speaking of is Christian Universalism. Or rather, that is what I am asking about. It was something brought up on another Christian discussion forum. As I understand it, Christian universalists believe that every person is covered by the blood of Jesus, and that in the end, when all things are restored, they too will be. Their belief seems to line up more with the catholic doctrine of purgatory than traditional universalists.

Here's the major problem I have with it. I believe that the sacrifice of Jesus is SUFFICIENT for all humanity and more. But I do not believe it is BENIFICAL to all humanity... That is, not everyone will share in its blessings. And for all the debate I've seen on this issue, I've never seen an answer to a very simple question I put forth.. That is, why is John 3:16 worded as it is?

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whosoever BELIEVES in Him should not perish but have everlasting life..."
(Emphasis mine)

Why is this verse, which is the one verse in the Bible written especially so that the unbeliever can understand it, worded to say that whosoever BELIEVES in Jesus will inherit everlasting life? Doesn't Universalism fly in the face of this?

Has anyone here ever heard of this form of universalism? What do you know of it, and what are your thoughts on it? I'd appreciate any insight you could offer.

AMEN INDEED! WONDERFUL PROCLAMATION!

GOOD FOR YOU DREAMWEAVER!

HAHA! You NAILED, it Timothy!

The words of these so-called 'leaders' sound more like desperate pleas than the declarations of a group 'winning its jihad against the infidels'. XD

Why is it the FBI has to use Politically correct 'sensitivity' when investigating the actions of suspected islamofascist terrorists, but NOT in any other case? I thought we were all equal in this country, but there's evidence here of a HUGE double-standard!

Thanks Pastor Roger! Somehow I knew you'd be the first to find me. 

Hmm... I think we need to be VERY careful on this issue. It is far too easy to swing in one direction or the other on this, and I think the right area is a fine line between.

Let me explain a bit... Where I look is in the message of the story or the film, the point it is trying to make. A story, film or not, makes it's point through four elements: Protagonist (Main character), Antagonist (Villain, not always an 'evil person;), conflict (The primary problem of a story), and resolution (That is, how the conflict is solved).

The problem I have with such films as Harry Potter is it glorifies magic. It says that witchcraft is neither good nor evil, that it only depends upon who wields it. The primary(stated) goal of the children at Hogwarts is to become wizards and witches. This is CLEARLY against Biblical teaching.

But there are other areas where I think the line has been skewed too far in the other direction by our culture's understanding of 'Magic'. For example, The Lord of the Rings primarily portrayed 'Magic' as a BAD thing! Even the most magical character, Gandalf, was not a 'wizard' in the traditional sense, though that is what he was called. In reality, he was one of the 'Istari', a group of beings sent by the god of that trilogy to aide humanity. Gandalf, in both word and deed, is far more of a Christ or angelic figure than a 'wizard.'

Where I have a problem is where WITCHCRAFT, magics black or white, are glorified. Other forms of magic like fairies, super powers (Super man anyone? That is a form of 'Magic'), etc. are COMPLETELY fictional and are made as a means to tell the story. They are not the means by which the conflict of the story is resolved, and therefore, while they move the story along, they are NOT the point of the story.

Someone mentioned Narnia... Yes, the wardrobe was 'Magical', yet it becomes clear as one reads the series that it is Aslan who calls the children into Narnia by his own will. (As a side note: Though C.S. Lewis did NOT intend Narnia as an allegory, it quickly becomes clear that Aslan IS the Narnian personification of Jesus Christ. Such becomes evident in such complex scenes as the Stone Table, which is HIGHLY remniscent of the cross, or in such subtlties as his names, one of which is 'the king above all high kings'. At the end of the 'Voyage of the Dawn Treader', Lucy makes a remark, upon being told by Aslan that neither she nor Edmund will be able to return again, that it is not Narnia they will miss, but rather, it is Aslan himself. Aslan replies that he exists in our world as well, and that is why the children were allowed to visit Narnia for a time, that by knowing him there for a little while, they would know him better in this world.)

Meanwhile, the most 'magical' character of the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, is indeed, the White Witch. And yet her craft is shown as the vile filth that it is.

Therefore, I do not believe that Narnia portrays magic as a desirable thing, whether in the books or films.

What is the lesson a film tries to teach? How does the hero of the story solve the conflict? In the Lord of the Rings (Sometimes oft rejected by Christians as Harry Potter), the hero, a plain-spoken hobbit named Frodo Baggins destroys the most sought-after power of that world, sacrificing his own life in the process. In Snow White, the heroine is saved by the courage of seven simple men, dwarves, and the love of a prince. These examples and be found all over the place, and I think we need to be careful about merely glancing the surface without delving down to see what a film or a book is truly trying to say.

Yes, as Christians we must use discression, but we should be careful not to judge a film or a book by what is on the surface, just as we should not do so when we face humanity itself. Thankyou.