So, if I am a Christian, and a conservative, and I believe that the whole global warming thing is not only a complete hoax, but a socialist ploy to do nothing more than attempt to transfer wealth, by creating a false fear that some how when humans efficiently use the natural resources (created by God who gave man dominion over it) of the earth, we are some how destroying it, my politics are driving my theology?
Ben, give me a brake! I thought you were smarter than that. You certainly try to sound that way with a post like this. Two things, you are wrong and cannot back up the statement of "even though these things have been and are almost unanimously accepted within the scientific community." Now you are guilty of just spouting the drivel of the political left. Could it be that "YOUR" politics are driving your theology? Just because you speak of treating the earth well and wrap it around any eschatological view, does not give you the higher moral ground.
Second, While I agree with the "Victorious Eschatological" view point, and that one's view of the end times does affect how we interact with our world today, do you expect me to believe that ONLY people who you label as "right wing" still believe in the dispensationalist view? No one who could be labeled as "Left wing" and hold that view?
You start this out with good intentions, and in the attempt to justify your thoughts, you do exactly the thing that you criticize. Your politics are driving your Faith actions.
Why don't you just be a Christian, and a lover of Freedom, do your due diligence on how you use/take care of the earth's resources and question everything from anyone in government, regardless of where the are on the political spectrum, as to what their real agenda is. If what they speak sounds biblical AND their actions follow that same tact, then go with it. BUT if the actions/solutions being purposed are a ruse to gain power and/or money. Reject it. By the way, IF man (all humans) got together and decided that we wanted to destroy the earth, could we do it? I would offer that if we thought we could, that would be a pretty arrogant attitude. Oh, and one last thing to dispel this notion that "the science has all ready been decided", do you realize that this volcano erupting in Iceland has placed more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in one day than all of Europe could in a year? I think God made the volcano, not sure what man has done to cause it to belch. Do you really think that the EPA (based upon that solved science of global warming) is in the right, to deem C02 as a harmful gas? Are you serious?

 

You know, if you are a "global warming" believer, how do you explain the fact that in the mid 1970's the "scientific consensus" (that means these things have been and are almost unanimously accepted within the scientific community.) was that the earth was cooling so rapidly that we were heading for another ice age. I realize that you were maybe 4 or 5 years old but it was just as hysterical then as it is today. Thank god that a bunch of "right-wing" conservative (both Christian & non-Christian) people started raping the planet. That allowed it to warm up enough to save the world from the predicted (science had proved it) ice age. It was a close one! Then the pendulum must have swung to far the other way and we get the "global warming", then since the earth has actually been cooling for the last 8 years those scientist had to change the name again and start referring to it as just plain old "climate change" (cause we don't know for sure which extreme we will get due to man's mis-use of the planet's resources) Also, we now know that the scientific community, peer reviewed no less, has been faking data, hiding data and just plain making it up when needed. Gotta keep that money coming in!
So, if we can determine that there is actual global warming/cooling (1970's) what is our reference temperature? Over the life of the planet, what is the average temperature? We need to know that, so then we will know what "to warm" or "to cold" is, right?

Come on man, do some basic noodle work on the issue, before you make yourself look stupid by just repeating the lies of others, just to help make your "Christian stewardship" point.

 

Hey James, good to hear from you brother. And good to hear your thoughts. Let me respond to a few.

James Says: So, if I am a Christian, and a conservative, and I believe that the whole global warming thing is not only a complete hoax, but a socialist ploy to do nothing more than attempt to transfer wealth, by creating a false fear that some how when humans efficiently use the natural resources (created by God who gave man dominion over it) of the earth, we are some how destroying it, my politics are driving my theology?
First let me affirm something in what you are saying. I agree, I think as you would, that environmental issues have been used as a "political football" by many to do exactly as you say. I don't promote this and would say that it has been done not just on the left or "socialist" side as you say, but on the right as well. For example, the petroleum industry has funded many non-governmental research projects which surprisingly all turn out to support the idea that there are no signs of global warming and that fossil fuel is not harmful to the environment. And as for humans "efficiently" using the resources God has given us, that is part of what I am advocating. And I am not saying that your politics are driving you theology, I am saying I have seen a trend (on both sides of the aisle by the way) of this happening. It just so happens with this issue much of conservative politics have been less than open minded about many scientific reports that are just that, scientific reports, that don't have a political agenda at all. Because some have used serious environmental issues as a political football does not mean that there aren't still serious environmental issues". (for a reliable research center on climate issues see The Pew Center on Global Climate Change, http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics. BTW, Pew Charitable Trust, which funds this research, has its history within the conservative movement and is considered a "conservative" organization)

 

James Says:Ben, give me a brake! I thought you were smarter than that. You certainly try to sound that way with a post like this. Two things, you are wrong and cannot back up the statement of "even though these things have been and are almost unanimously accepted within the scientific community." Now you are guilty of just spouting the drivel of the political left. Could it be that "YOUR" politics are driving your theology? Just because you speak of treating the earth well and wrap it around any eschatological view, does not give you the higher moral ground.
Well, I never claimed to be smart, just open to constantly learning. :) As for my "spouting the drivel of the political left", and the consensus of global warming, see the above response relating to the Pew Center for Global Climate Change. I do understand that there are some organizations that are attempting to combat what is (and I don't think you can disagree with this) the overwhelming majority of support for the data that the Earth is warming and that it is due to things such as, but not limited to, C02. I think the burden to prove other wise is squarely on your shoulders. As for my politics driving my theology, I have to admit that I am just as susceptible to this as anyone. I made the mistake (as you know) of voting for President Obama this last election, believing on some issues he would bring change. (Having said this, I am thoroughly convinced it wouldn't have made much difference if I had voted for McCain in the long run. To quote my Economics professor in college, "They are both going the same direction, one is just going a little slower.") However, even with that vote, I have never claimed to be a Republican or a Democrat and believe that those following Jesus will get flack from both the "conservative" and the "liberal" sides of the aisle. I definitely don't feel I have the "higher moral ground", but am just trying to follow Jesus and think Biblically about the world I live in. (Emphasis on trying)

Thanks again for responding, this is exactly the type of dialogue that I think is helpful, maybe minus the jabs and stupid comments. :)

 

James Says:Second, While I agree with the "Victorious Eschatological" view point, and that one's view of the end times does affect how we interact with our world today, do you expect me to believe that ONLY people who you label as "right wing" still believe in the dispensationalist view? No one who could be labeled as "Left wing" and hold that view?
You start this out with good intentions, and in the attempt to justify your thoughts, you do exactly the thing that you criticize. Your politics are driving your Faith actions.
First, I would be hesitant to label where I am in my eschatological views as "victorious eschatology" if you are speaking in relation to the book "Victorious Eschatology", but that is a conversation for another day. And, no, in no way do I believe that only conservatives make up those that hold to a "dispensationalist" theology/eschatology. If I came across that way I apologize. It spans ideologies. In fact, dispensationalism has a strong connection in many Black churches with Liberation theology. (i.e. Jeremiah Wright). These two are strange bed fellows I know. As for my politics driving my theology, I don't believe I have promoted here any political options to environmental issues. How do you define my politics from these posts? Are my politics or political leanings evident because I believe that we should care for the earth? If so, what label do I get? If it is "left" as you seem to be alluding, does that mean that the "right" doesn't desire to care for the Earth? Again, I have not attempted to lay out any political philosophies or ideologies but tried to think theologically and biblically about these issues.

 

James Says:Why don't you just be a Christian, and a lover of Freedom, do your due diligence on how you use/take care of the earth's resources and question everything from anyone in government, regardless of where the are on the political spectrum, as to what their real agenda is. If what they speak sounds biblical AND their actions follow that same tact, then go with it. BUT if the actions/solutions being purposed are a ruse to gain power and/or money. Reject it.
I am not sure how this comment fits into the dialogue, but I will respond anyway. I am trying to be a Christian and a lover of freedom, but I wonder how we define freedom. This is a whole other topic, but I will at least link you to a document about thirty years old written by John Howard Yoder, prominent theologian from Notre Dame, entitled "Christian Decleration of Independance" which is a good summary of the way I believe we as Christians should view the concept of Freedom. See it by going here: https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B-blgZfEyPL7NGIwY2ZiYTctZTdhZC00MDVhLTk2NWEtMjc2MmVjYWUzNjgx&hl=en I can only say in your own words "ditto" to our need to as Christians to faithfully investigate our public officials, whether present or future, their philosphies/ideologies/theologies, and hold them to the biblical worldview we are attempting to live. No quams with that at all. I am guessing by your making this comment that you are assessing that I have not done this in your estimation. I guess that is what civil dialogue about these issues is good for, to work through how we come to differing conclusions while following the same Jesus.

 

James says:By the way, IF man (all humans) got together and decided that we wanted to destroy the earth, could we do it? I would offer that if we thought we could, that would be a pretty arrogant attitude. Oh, and one last thing to dispel this notion that "the science has all ready been decided", do you realize that this volcano erupting in Iceland has placed more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in one day than all of Europe could in a year? I think God made the volcano, not sure what man has done to cause it to belch. Do you really think that the EPA (based upon that solved science of global warming) is in the right, to deem C02 as a harmful gas? Are you serious?
I think your first question here is an excellent question. Really at its heart it is a theological question. Can human beings really effect, whether negatively or positively, God's creation? My answer is yes. In Genesis 1:28 we see that God gave humanity both the call to "subdue" and the power of "dominion" over what he has created. It is interesting because the word "dominion" here which means in hebrew "to rule" is actually used in many of OT passages in a negative sense as "to trample, to tread, destroy". I am in no way conveying that God called us to "destroy" his creation, but he gave us dominion over it, which means we have rule over it, given to us by him. It would not be "real" rule if we could not effect it, either negatively or positively. The question then becomes, because we were given this creation by a good God, and given dominion over it, how will we use that dominion. There are some who respond with the attitude, "God gave us dominion so we can do with it as we please." However, we have a responsibility to live the call to the "image" of God he created us within and treat this Earth as He would. Instead of selfishly harvesting it for personal gain, we responsibly protect it so that it will be here for other generations. Again, I am not promoting any governmental plan or political scheme, just Biblical theology. As for your point about the volcano, I don't have the information in front of me to talk intelligently on that, so I will take your word on it. However, it would not surprise me if this was true because the Earth we live is itself suffering from the effects of sin. The Apostle Paul said that "creation groans to be released from its chains", meaning that things in God's created world are not as they were intended to be. We have things such as volcano eruptions, tsunamis, earthquakes, cancer, etc, because the Earth has not been totally restored from its painful position. The fact that a volcano dumps more C02 into the atmosphere than the CO2 level that comes from humans over a period of time is a weak argument to not regulating C02. That is like saying "I can dump this can of motor oil in the river because it is not nearly as much as all of the pollution that the industrial plant up stream is dumping." Both are harsh on the environment and just because we haven't created the negative effect that the volcano did, doesn't give us the right to create a less negative effect.

Again, I appreciate your comments and the opportunity to dialogue about these issues. I learn from you and everyone that shares their thoughts, questions, concerns, etc.

Again, as for

 

James said:You know, if you are a "global warming" believer, how do you explain the fact that in the mid 1970's the "scientific consensus" (that means these things have been and are almost unanimously accepted within the scientific community.) was that the earth was cooling so rapidly that we were heading for another ice age. I realize that you were maybe 4 or 5 years old but it was just as hysterical then as it is today. Thank god that a bunch of "right-wing" conservative (both Christian & non-Christian) people started raping the planet. That allowed it to warm up enough to save the world from the predicted (science had proved it) ice age. It was a close one! Then the pendulum must have swung to far the other way and we get the "global warming", then since the earth has actually been cooling for the last 8 years those scientist had to change the name again and start referring to it as just plain old "climate change" (cause we don't know for sure which extreme we will get due to man's mis-use of the planet's resources) Also, we now know that the scientific community, peer reviewed no less, has been faking data, hiding data and just plain making it up when needed. Gotta keep that money coming in! So, if we can determine that there is actual global warming/cooling (1970's) what is our reference temperature? Over the life of the planet, what is the average temperature? We need to know that, so then we will know what "to warm" or "to cold" is, right?
Well, I have to be honest and say that I had not heard anything about this until you brought it up. So, I took a little time to investigate the "global cooling" hysteria that you mentioned and it seems that it was not nearly as accepted as you seem to display. According to everything I have read online (articles ranging from national geographic to scientific abstracts) global cooling, although it was a theory of some scientists, was pretty quickly disproved by growing statistics that supported global warming. As well, it was not commonly held by most in the scientific community, rather it was only one of many theories. It seemed to gain popularity due to a Newsweek article written in April 1975. Again, I am by no means an expert on this, and am willing to be corrected, I am just reporting what I found out with a bit of investigation. As for the "faking data" of the scientific community; I think it is unfair to lump everyone in on this. I would like to see some references to this, however, I would not be shocked if data was faked on either side of this debate. Humanity is as humanity is and faking data would be likely for some to gain funding, whether it be from a government or a private agency. However, the actions of the few do not dictate the findings of the many. Again, the burden of proof is squarely on the shoulders of those who want to disprove what seems to be a mountain of data supporting the existence of Global Warming.

 

James said:Come on man, do some basic noodle work on the issue, before you make yourself look stupid by just repeating the lies of others, just to help make your "Christian stewardship" point.
Well it wouldn't be the first time I have made myself look stupid and I am sure not the last. I do appreciate your thoughts on this subject and others, and have learned from you. Most recently you have helped me re-connect to some of my libertarian roots, and think through the political dross that is present today. I will say, in light of this last comment, I understand that this comes from a "big" brother, so I take it like that, but it brings up a separate issue that I think is strongly in need of attention in our world today. That is a return to civility within political dialogue. The political climate today seems to be driven by the polarizing figures, the pundits, and the talking heads. We as Christians shouldn't be taking our lead from the likes of the Glenn Becks or the Keith Olbermans. These figures are polarizing figures, whose motives do not include true civil dialogue, learning from others, listening to ideas, or responding with grace. They gain ratings by drawing people to their shows, and they draw people to their shows by being polarizing. Those who call themselves Christians need to spearhead a movement to return to civility when dialoguing with others about the political realm. I know I need reminded of this personally all the time.