Destroy OR Deplete? I'll go along with the "Destroy" part, but "Deplete" covers a lot of ground. Most theological types seem to believe that resources are put here to be used, including non-renewable ones. Non-theological types don't couch it in those terms, of course, but they don't seem to have any hard-and-fast rule against using non-renewable resources either.



That's true, but I don't think anyone other than Mad Scientists want to actually destroy it. Whether they do it through carelessness, without intending to, is another question.

Some environmental questions come down to a sliding scale. If you were drinking water that was 98% pure, would you give up half of what you own, to make it 99% pure? Proabably not. If you were drinking grey water, would you be willing to invest considerable sums to make it better? Probably yes. The exact boundary isn't always easy to find.



And of course, you can care about preserving the environment without believing in man-made climate change. The two issues are similar, but not the same. You know, the Boy Scouts were saying "Take only pictures, leave only footprints" before anyone ever heard of Global Warming.

Hope everything's been going well for you. Be sure to check out our Tandem game, if you want to get in the next one.

Yeah, I guess he doesn't mean that we should use literally nothing at all that is non-renewable, but putting it bluntly gets the point across that he thinks people should place more importance on looking after resources - so recycling, reusing etc. even when it's less convenient to do so.


Again, he's maybe using hyperbole - I suppose it could be read as 'We have no licence to treat the world as our plaything to do just what we please with.'

The broad point is that, according to the Bible, God entrusted human beings with the task of looking after the earth and using all its wonderful resources wisely. And yet this is not the dominant message from Christians and spokespeople for Christianity regarding the environment. Maybe this is changing, not before time I say.

Absolutely.


I agree to the extent God has given it to man. There is also another verse in Psalm 115:16. I recently heard in one of the messages. "The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD's: but the earth hath he given to the children of men." I understand and agree there should be messages on this but I am not sure if it should be dominant. Because I would consider anything outward as a by-product of the renewing of your inner man. Otherwise I think what will happen is, you would work towards the betterment if it is going to be profitable for you, and you wouldn't work or work the other way if it is going to be unprofitable for you. Again where would you draw the line? Should everyone go to the Amish style of living to preserve the environment?? My belief is, God cursed the earth when mankind sinned. You cannot work against God to make it a blessing. You can try but I'm afraid you will break something else in that process. However when people become righteous, the curse will automatically be lifted and it will have none effect. Just like the promised land, you will then be in a place on this earth which you possibly cannot damage and where you will always have a good environment to enjoy! (I know, I know, it is going to be boring, you cannot have global warming discussions! ;))

And, let me *also* add my "Amen!!" to that!


Chess Fan

I respond by suggesting that you do some background research on the reliability of your sources.

It is for all intents and purposes a fabricated story. The RATE group are not trained in the dating techniques they are trying to use. They made errors.

They are the only group that has apparently ever found these anomalous results. So, either the hundreds of scientists who have been working in this field for decades are wrong. Or a small group with no history of work in the field are wrong.

Would you want a trained radiologist reading your x-ray or do you want to hand it to a chemist with no training? Based on your choice of sources here I'm guessing you'll take the chemist, or perhaps the fortune teller down the street.

How about you try a former priest who is a biologist as a source of information.

100% agreement from me on this, PircAlert! I think it's a tragedy that so many Christians and churches have no plan (or even intention) to become the kind of person that God would want them to be. We simply must allow and work with God to transform our inner being so that we naturally do good things - so we become people who cannot help but love our enemy, consider other people's needs before our own etc. All else flows from this.

Even doctrinal correctness must be secondary to transformation of the Christian's inner being, I think. I think it's another tragedy that there are so many arguments among Christians over secondary things like exactly what will happen when Jesus returns, and whether people can lose their salvation. Doctrine is important but developing character like love, goodness, kindness, gentleness etc. is more important.

Yeah, and I can see how hyperbole can be a useful rhetorical device sometimes. All right, well let me think how to phrase this. Is he criticizing them for failing to believe in man-made climate change? Or is he critizing them for something much larger, of which failing to believe in man-made climate change is only a single symptom?

I might be a little cynical here. I think that on the whole British society is a little less vapid than American. But over here it wouldn't be at all unusual to hear someone make an argument that boiled down to "Believe in climate change to prove how much you care about the environment." I can think of a lot of good reasons why someone might believe in climate change; scientific evidence, meteorological readings, et cetera, but believing in it to look oneself look good is the dumbest reason imaginable. It's also the reason that a lot of our politicians believe in it. I always bristle when someone tries to get me to support something by appealing to the worst part of my nature. (I have to stress that that is NOT a statement about global warming, pro or con, it's a statement about human nature.)

That kind of thing is very common here, but hopefully argument is a little more sophisticated than that in the UK. (If it's not, don't burst my bubble. I don't want to know).

I wonder if there have been any studies along those lines? Are people who believe in man-made climate change more likely to recycle than ones who don't?

For a shorter thread just insert any time you disagree with the majority of relevant scientists around the world.

Wait, you say. Just because the majority say one thing doesn't mean they're right.

Agreed. If you have relevant experience, education, and knowledge of the subject and understands the science behind the topic then your disagreements should be examined using the same criteria that all scientific ideas are subject to.

However, if you do not have that experience, knowledge, or even a basic grasp of how science works then the ideas and opinions that contradict the experts are noise at best, obstructionism or even dangerous at worst.

Yeah, but is that the main reason why people who don't believe in man-made climate change feel that way? I know it seems that way if you post here, since the only person representing that viewpoint is avowedly anti-intellectual, and completely self-absorbed (about everything, not just environmental issues). But it might be a stretch to go from that to the idea that Christians in general are indifferent to environmental concerns in general, as Kevin and his article seem to be suggesting.

I still think that, the local lunatic fringe notwithstanding, opposition to the idea is based more on distrust of politicians than distrust of scientists. They're the ones that people hear about this from. I just pulled out part of a post I wrote in July that bears posting again:





Or, to put it another way: Granted, I might be very stupid (or at least uninformed) if I didn't accept that man-made climate change was happening. But would that also prove that I was indifferent to all environmental concerns?

Christians are all over the place on climate change and planetary stewardship. Some christian groups are extremely concerned. My congregation sponsored a book reading a couple of years ago that was basically focused on what congregations could do to ease climate change. They did a special fund raising campaign to replace all the incandescent bulbs with CFLs. My daughter created the brochure they used to encourage people to conserve at home.

And, as you mention, you have the other extreme who view climate change as some sort of a plot designed to undermine true christian values.

It certainly appears that the same christians who doubt climate change are also the most dis-trusting of non-church authorities and those who disagree with them. So it really does confound religious belief with political belief. Or, perhaps, for that branch of christianity there is no difference?