Yes. You regularly reveal your thoughts, as you did in this reply, maybe more than you reaiize, with your tone and the assumptions you demonstrate that you make about people you don’t know.
You really have no idea what my experience has been, or anyone else’s here.
Addressing your rude remark to Laura as consistent with your other posts and responding to it as such is not an attack. I demonstrated why your reply was received by a number of people in the way that it was.
You have chosen, rather than to see this as vaulable information about how to communicate better, to see this as a personal attack. You can feel disappointed with me, or consider how to communicate better. You know, learn something. Change for the better.
Looking over the rest of your reply, I see more of the same attitude. Adam, you present yourself as one man attempting to uphold Truth against the pagan hoards. In doing so you regularly call into question the spiritual state of brothers (mostly brothers) and sisters in Christ.
You recently replied to Randy — to Randy of all people! — that God has a sense of humor. When Randy good-heartedly misunderstood your intent, you clarified, indicating that God was going to be laughing over the damnation of people. In the context of your other posts in this forum, you communicated quite clearly. If there have been attacks in the forum, your reply to Randy certainly counts as one.
Then deal with your known failings properly, humbly, biblically.
OMG! You’re not talking about Laestadians, are you? I have watched some time ago a Finnish TV drama about them… I didn’t realise at first they were real and when I later looked them up I was actually surprised. Lol you could have been one of the characters , but obviously not one of the Laestadians!!!
I have even heard about movement of people giving up TV that had nothing to do with religion. Personally, I lived without one for several months when I was 19, but then I had internet, so not sure whether that even counts.
That’s funny, I will have to look this up
C’mon what else it could possibly be
Yes, it’s like “I’m a good and kind person to you, but I think you should not exist/be where you are in life/are going to hell”. And when you challenge them, then you’re the bad guy/gal. Know the type well.
My brother (in Placerville, CA) has solar panels on his roof and no storage batteries. His panels transform sunsine into electrical energy and he uses it. If he needs more, he gets charged for “the more.” If his panels produce more than he needs in a day, the excess gets sent back to the electric company or “poured” intp the pool that everybody else uses. The credit for his excess energy generation is only pennies per KWhour, so is not a moneymaker. But his panels generate a little more than he and his wife use over a year, from date of installation. So his net energy cost annually, since installation has been a small credit. No batteries. He draws “off the grid after dark”. But … he says, new installations require battery installation, which add considerable cost.
He has a generator and subpanel to plug the generator into during power outages.
Yeah, the most strict movement of them. There are several revival movements stemming from the teachings of Laestadius. Most are rather moderate, for example my grandparents belonged to the ‘New revival’ movement. They were active in the local church and arranged funding for missionary work done by the Lutheran church. I never heard that they would have spoken badly about other Christians.
The strict version, conservative laestadianism, is the largest one of the local revival movements, with 80’000-150’000 members in Finland. The movement has activities in about 20 countries, the majority live in Finland, Sweden and USA.
We have sometimes joked that they will finally occupy the whole country because the families have much more kids than others. Ten kids is fairly usual, some have even more, while the average number of children in the country is much below two. Probably the young generation is less extreme and I believe most use contraception although it is not ok according to the traditional teaching.
Sounds like a good deal. I should look into it a bit more as I have a fair amount of south facing roof I might could use. Of course, what your brother is doing is using the grids generation capacity as his storage, so he sorta has a battery.
Yep. His panels are mounted on his roof. His house is on 5 acres of a west-facing scrub-oak covered hillside. If it was on the south side or he had been willing to build a tower, he could have done a “ground mount” or “tower mount”. My Dad was a big DIY-er. Planted a pole far enough from his house, with two or four panels on a rotating frame that “tracked the sun” from dawn to dusk. He collected old car batteries intending to rejuvenate them for storage purposes, but my brother talked him into moving into a granny-flat on his five acres.
I recall an article that claimed that if we put solar over all the parking in the U.S. it would provide something like 4% of the country’s energy needs. The author was ambitious, too: he wanted solar over all U.S. Highways and U.S. Interstate Highways!
Then there was an Italian urban designer who proposed essentially roofing entire cities with solar roofing (along with suspended ‘streets’ between buildings about every half-dozen floors).
The best places for production of solar energy is right where it will be used! Making massive installations will run up against a big problem with all such sources: transmission wires ‘bleed’ energy.
There’s also a national security aspect: solar right were the power will be used isn’t subject to potential terrorist strikes.
For industry, I suppose not. OTOH, if nearly all power for residential and commercial was produced at or near where needed, that would free up the transmission lines for industry!
That reminded me of something I was reading just the other day: someone was writing about how a house in Seattle could at best provide only about 2/3 of its energy needs from solar, a house in southern Oregon could provide all its needs, while a house in southern Arizona could provide more than enough – so people in Arizona could provide the power for people in Seattle . . . .
I was looking into solar roofing over the weekend and learned that for a full-roof installation I would be required to have batteries. So I looked for the best system that integrates the roofing, batteries, and a feed to the grid just in case I run the batteries down or top them off, and the result was Tesla’s integrated system.
So I went to get an estimate, went through all the steps providing them information, only to be told at the end that they do not serve my area! Seriously, why didn’t they say that the moment I entered my zip code?!?
Living up fairly north, latitude 60, solar panels do not produce much energy between November and February. Much of the winter time, the panels are covered by snow. It is obvious that solar is just one among the many sources of energy needed.
Despite the constraints, solar panels on our roof will return their price in about a decade through lowered energy costs. The savings come mainly through reduced cost of power transfer - the monthly cost of power transfer is today even higher than the price of the electricity itself. The price of the extra electricity we sell back is so small that optimized panels need to be sized based on the consumption in the house - any panels exceeding own consumption would be wasting money because the price of the panels would be higher than what you can get by selling the extra energy. The situation might be different at latitudes where you get sufficient production around the year.
A small tip for those planning to have solar panels: taking a bit larger inverter than the calculated need can be beneficial. During sunny days, we get about 5 kW (4.99) from high-quality panels that were planned to give a peak output of 4.7 kW by having a 5 kW inverter. I don’t know if we could get even more with a larger inverter. The negative side of a larger inverter is that the minimum energy gain needed from the panels is higher - no production during the dark winter days when the energy gain is below the threshold.
In addition to abusing what has been written, there is a possibility to abuse what has not been told.
I started to read a sci-fi book that seems to utilize the ‘silent years’ of Jesus - there is close to nothing told about Jesus between he was a child and started his ministry. The gap seems to be a prey of writers with wild imagination. Did you know that before his ministry, Jesus traveled to Rome and became for a short while a senator, and then needed some persuasion by time travelers and an AI within an alien artefact to return to Israel (according to the sci-fi writer)
Interesting to speculate. I had a friend who was in a cultish sect that held he went to what is now the British Isles and hung out. Probably in grad school.
Yes in the UK we had the ironic situation of the BBC sending it’s chief environment reporter to Greece to report on fires he said were worse due to global warming. As if they couldnt have used a local reporter to appear on tv for a few minutes instead of flying him in! It’s that sort of hypocrisy that puts others off doing something themselves.
For limiting kids’ TV watching, there’s always the trick of inserting an exercise bike into the circuit so that someone has to be pedaling for it to be on.
My impression is that seventh-day adventism has a range of views on whether others are merely mistaken or automatically doomed. Some congregations allow other churches to use their space on Sunday when they aren’t using it; conversely, I’ve seen a billboard claiming that Sunday worship was the mark of the beast or unpardonable sin or something of that sort.
Although there are badly-justified claims that Christianity tends to be antienvironmental (perhaps most famously The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis on JSTOR , which has been cited thousands of times but does not contain any citations), there are examples of antienvironmentalism in the church, primarily in conservative circles. PSCF Richard T. Wright "Tearing Down the Green: Environmental Backlash in the Evangelical Sub-Culture is nearly thirty years old, but provides a reasonable overview. Some of the “I’ve definitively figured out eschatology, and the second coming is in the next few years” crowd takes the attitude that “it’s all about to burn, why bother”, and some of the “everyone Christian should be spending all their time asking everyone if they are saved instead of focusing on doing a good job in whatever place God has called them to” mentality would say it’s not important enough to bother with. Conservative politics and (often partially justified) suspicion of the government often plays a role. I have not attempted to trace the origins, but in the US, both ID and young-earth advocates often promote rather bad arguments for climate change denial and sometimes even other bogus science like “secondhand smoke isn’t harmful”. Although eisegesis is sometimes invoked in support of such positions, the interpretation is sufficiently strained that it’s evident that someone was trying to support an existing position rather than starting from a misinterpretation. (E.g., Genesis 8:22 is not proof that climate change won’t happen, especially as there are several warnings that bad weather can occur as a judgement. Likewise, the claim that “If you believe that God is sovereign, you shouldn’t be concerned about human impacts on the environment” is not a sound interpretation. Technically, “God will keep you safe no matter what you do” can be found in the Bible, but it should not take much theological insight to realize that Matthew 4:6 is not a good “life verse”.)
, but obviously not one of the Laestadians!!!
