Is the Bible reliable?

[BobRyan]

Evolutionism is a made up word that is basically meaningless.

Until you notice the distinctively religious nature of "belief in" evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[elliott95]

Until you notice the distinctively religious nature of "belief in" evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

Christians here are exclusive when it comes to their religion being Christianity.
Arguments against evolution as a religion rather than a scientific inquiry therefore miss the mark completely as an address to me, or anybody here.
This is a Christian only forum. 'Evolutionism' is not our religion, therefore addressing any of as if we belief in evolution as a religion is basically a flame. Like all flames, it only goes to show the poverty of your arguments in the first place.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not it does not mean we are as powerful as God, we after all, do not have the ability to create a planet, let alone, an entire universe.

Right, and we don't have the ability to destroy it. God wouldn't allow it.

What it does mean, is that apart of Man's freedom/free will, is having the ability to screw ourselves (make bad decisions resulting in loss of life), other life forms (many animal species have gone extinct because of us), and even this planet.

Many species have gone extinct without us, too. I think that's part of God's plan.

You remind me of someone denying that Nuclear War is a possibilty because the result would lead to parts of human civilization being destroyed, and parts of the world being heavily damaged, and this damage to the world is something God will not allow because humans do not have that much power over of the world, etc.

Riiiight...you know me very well...Dude, war is Biblical.

One of the things Climate Change has in common with Nuclear War (and other not as destructive forms of War) is that it can bring damage to human civilization and the natural world. If we can already cause massive damage because of war, why not through Climate Change?

On this I agree with George Carlin. Who are we to be so presumptuous that God would allow us to destroy His creation?

And remember, to accept that humans are helping to cause Climate Change, does not mean we are the sole causer (there are natural reasons as well), nor does it mean we can fix and remove all climate change (we can not). But we can try to lessen its damaging effects (similar to how some people already try to fix parts of the natural world that Man has hurt not climate change related, such as animal/plant life, or lessening the damage we do to ourselves). And there is nothing wrong with wanting to try, and we are not playing God in trying to do so.

I never said we didn't help cause climate change. I was saying we're not the primary cause, and we're not.
If you can read, I also said I'm a strong proponent of conservation. This doesn't mean we can't use the resources we have, it means we use them judiciously. By the way, there are many more places on Earth where nature has damaged the planet than there are places where man has damaged the planet.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Then you are not reading James Barr's statements, or Gluadys' or MC's all of them deny the historicity of the Bible in Gen 1-2.

MC' wants to make it all poetry so there is no historicity to defend - and Gluady knows better and so does James Barr (And so do many Christian Hebrew scholars) not to mention Darwin.

So now you're trying to say that poetry can't be historical? Have you read Charge of the Light Brigade? Is that work completely accurate? I doubt I--history has a POV of the teller, every time.

IF your posts are your way of declaring your support for the same sort of 7 day timeline as the real 7 day week at Sinai "SIX Days you shall labor.. for in SIX days the LORD made..." this is the first time I have seen you post it.

in Christ,

Bob

It is not the first time I've posted it. But I don't know that it's stated anywhere that a day is 24 hours in that passage. In other words, you're free to believe what you want of it. As long as you hold that God created everything, you'll be just fine.

 

[Root of Jesse]

God, no doubt, intends natural climate change; there have been several cycles of warmer and colder climates over time from the snowball earth of late Precambrian times to the general hothouse of Jurassic times to the ice ages of the Pleistocene. And some of these have been associated with mass extinctions. And with significant shifts in evolution.

But human-induced climate change which is our doing and which we can put an end to ourselves (to get back to naturally changing climate) is our responsibility, not God's. It is not for us to precipitate a mass extinction any more than to try to force an early return of Christ to this world. It is our God-given responsibility to take the best care of this planet that we can.

Neither of which we could do.
Since when is something human unnatural??
Your last statement is right on, though.

 

[Root of Jesse]

On the cross or are you claiming that the Bible supports cannibalism -- Lev 11 notwithstanding to the contrary??

The Jews and Pagan Romans argued that the Christians were claiming to believe in cannibalism. But that is because they were keeping "a certain distance" from the details in the text.

in Christ,

Bob

Note that when the Jews left him because they thought he was speaking of cannibalism, he didn't correct them, he let them walk away.

But it's not cannibalism. It's His divine flesh we're being presented with.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And of course that is true - even though Genesis 18 describes God and 2 angels as men - because they appear in the form of men to Abraham.

Gen 18
18 And the Lord (YHWH) appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
3 And said, My Lord (YHWH), if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:

17 And the Lord (YHWH) said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;
18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?
19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
20 And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.


22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the Lord.




Chapt 19
And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; 2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.


In this example - Moses explains explicitly two of them were angels and one of them was YHWH. But Moses says all three of them appeared in the form of men.



God and man? or God and the Archangel?

in Christ,

Bob

Don't you SDA's believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel incarnate?

 

[gluadys]

Don't you SDA's believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel incarnate?

I know that is a Jehovah's Witness belief. Might be SDA too, but I just don't know in that case.

 

[gluadys]

Right, and we don't have the ability to destroy it. God wouldn't allow it.
Many species have gone extinct without us, too. I think that's part of God's plan.
Riiiight...you know me very well...Dude, war is Biblical.
On this I agree with George Carlin. Who are we to be so presumptuous that God would allow us to destroy His creation?

I don't think God would let us destroy his creation. But I do think that he would let his creation destroy us if that is what it would take to save it. Remember, the Jewish authorities in Jeremiah's time thought that God would never allow Jerusalem to be destroyed either.

In the end-Permian extinction, 90% of then-existing species disappeared. If, by our action, we can avoid that scenario over the next century, should we not at least try?

I never said we didn't help cause climate change. I was saying we're not the primary cause, and we're not.

What difference does that make to our obligation to do what we can about our share of the cause?

If you can read, I also said I'm a strong proponent of conservation. This doesn't mean we can't use the resources we have, it means we use them judiciously.

And at this moment in time, the only judicious use of fossil fuel is no use. Once the atmosphere is stabilized at natural levels, there may be a place for some restrained use of fossil fuels again down the road. But not for quite awhile. We need to reduce current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 25% before we add any more at all. And it takes about 2 centuries to get rid of currently existing CO2. The strong warnings right now are that we cannot safely use what is already in our storage tanks, much less what is still underground.

By the way, there are many more places on Earth where nature has damaged the planet than there are places where man has damaged the planet.

Irrelevant. We are only responsible for what we are doing and for what we can do to correct that.

 

[BobRyan]

Evolutionism is a made up word that is basically meaningless.

Until you notice the distinctively religious nature of "belief in" evolutionism.

Even the atheists among them admit to the distinctively religious nature of the argument for blind faith evolutionism.

Christians here are exclusive when it comes to their religion being Christianity.

Indeed the Jews argued with Christ that no matter their deeds and words to the contrary - they were still the people of God and children of Abraham. Christ responded that God was able to raise up the descendants of Abraham out of rocks.

Arguments against evolution as a religion rather than a scientific inquiry therefore miss the mark completely as an address to me, or anybody here.

In real life I think my point is incredibly obvious so much so that even the atheists themselves get the point clearly -- and a few will even admit to it.

This is a Christian only forum. 'Evolutionism' is not our religion, therefore addressing any of as if we belief in evolution as a religion is basically a flame. Like all flames, it only goes to show the poverty of your arguments in the first place.

construing every inconvenient detail as "a flame" is a political act - it is not attention to detail.

Here is an example of the case being made - and no way to bend or twist it into a flame against Christians.

[FONT=&quot]Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at [/FONT]the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 [FONT=&quot] - said:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"'...holding creationist ideas could [/FONT][FONT=&quot]plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact[/FONT][FONT=&quot],'" [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Patterson countered, "That seems to [/FONT][FONT=&quot]summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact ([/FONT][FONT=&quot]saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of a good many of you in here... [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"...,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge[/FONT][FONT=&quot] , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..." [/FONT]

I never argue that Christians should choose that path. If you want to insist you are doing it and how dare I point to any flaw in the argument you use... well... welcome to the debate forums.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Don't you SDA's believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel incarnate?

You keep asking me that - and I keep saying that we believe that Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity - fully God - from eternity past and for all eternity - 3 co-equal persons in the Godhead.

What part of that sounds like "An angel incarnated as man"???

-----------------------------------------------------------

What I did post was that in Genesis 18 God and 2 angels "appear in the form" of 3 men - but that does not mean God was man or that Angels are men. They have the "ability to appear in that form" so as to relate to Abraham -- that is all.

God the Son was the "Word" from the very beginning in John 1:1 - so he has had the job of conveying 'infinite God' to finite beings - and that means bridging an infinite gap. He has the ability to appear to Abraham as a man - but He was still God the Son.

He has only ever been incarnated however as one being/one form/one person. And that is Jesus the Christ, 2000 years ago.

If Jesus appeared in the form of a man or in the form of the Archangel -- it could only have been "the appearance" -- it could not be true incarnation and it could not be that He is merely a man or merely whatever other form he might choose to assume for the sake of communicating infinite God to finite beings.

In the walk to Emmaus story (narrative) in Luke - Christ appears as a normal man - not even as his former self but such that the two would not recognize him... and while that is great - He is still infinite God and not some regular Joe.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[elliott95]

Even the atheists among them admit to the distinctively religious nature of the argument for blind faith evolutionism.

Nobody here is an advocate of blind faith evolutionism.
Nobody here is even an atheist.
Who says that flames and strawmen do not mix? When will that strawman ever burn?

There are advocates of blind faith Christian fundamentalism though.

Freud would be delighted that his projection theory still has explanatory power.

 

[Root of Jesse]

What?

I are you suggesting that my rain dances have not been having any effect?
Surely you jest.

Where you live, brother, you don't need any extra rain dances...

 

[Root of Jesse]

This seems like a very strange way of thinking, on many accounts.

For one thing, why do you think man can be responsible for significant sins on a small scale, but not on a large one? I can choose to murder someone, or burn down someones home, or raze a landscape, or release smallpox into the population (if I had access to it,) or contaminate an area with radiation, and destroy a person's life, or many lives, or the livlihoods of many, or even the livlihoods of their children or their ability to reproduce.

I can split an atom, or genetically modify animals, for evil ends, or just stupid and selfish ends.

Do you not think God can make good out of bad? For example, while a volcanic eruption causes immediate devastation, doesn't God's work make good come out of it? I believe that even our mistakes, for example, the pollution of the waters of the Great Lakes in the 60's, or the emission of chloroflorocarbons, God turns for the good.

Why would God allow the consequences of any sin, of these kinds of sins, of these kinds of carelessness, but not the consequences of burning huge amounts of fossil fuels in a short period of time? There is no difference in kind, and frankly not much difference in scale either.

I have no idea why you would think being able to affect climate by our actions would be in any way similar to having the power of God. That is not a matter of scale, it is a matter of kind - it is about being the ground of being, the divine logos, that which creates and sustains all things. None of us can do that. What we can do, and do do, is destroy things.

We also make things better when we destroy things, for example, we almost eradicated malaria by formulating, and using, DDT to kill mosquitoes. (Since the ban on DDT, malaria has come back with a vengeance, BTW).
I don't believe God would allow mankind to destroy his planet. For example, we discovered (because God allowed it) nuclear fusion and fission. Initially it was used to create weapons of mass destruction, and we had the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction. We almost went to nuclear war, even. We also discovered that we could use nuclear reaction to create electricity.
Heck, even massive oil spills eventually turn back to good.

Screwing up the climate is just what we've always done, on a larger scale. And it isn't like it will destroy creation in some complete way - it will just really screw it up as a place for people to live in. It seems much less god-like than creating new elements that never existed before, or pulling them apart.

Permanence is a relative thing. If we go to a hot state, it won't be permanent, from the earth's perspective, it will likely only be a few hundred thousand years. But that will be a problem for us, because it will affect agriculture in a very significant way and the ocean's will be much less productive.

I am not sure why you think that larger ice sheets somehow negate overall trends. Changes to the temperature of the oceans have a lot of weird effects - they affect things like wind and currents which affect in turn how ice forms. In the short term, that can mean, for example, a lot of ice formation. Climate change can mean a variety of localized effects as it happens.

The long term is a different story, but anyone from a northern nation can tell you that climate change is already a reality for them. They are dealing with its effects on their infrastructure and plants and animals now, and it is a problem for them. (Ever wonder why governments are so interested right now in establishing arctic claims?)

That's called "weather", not climate change.

The Catholic Church doesn't teach that people could not affect the Earth to the degree that would cause climate change, nor does the Orthodox Church for that matter. Why would you think that such a thing is impossible when the theology of your own church does not support it?

Patriarch Bartholomew said:

"The fundamental criterion for an ecological ethic is not individualistic or commercial. It is deeply spiritual. For, the root of the environmental crisis lies in human greed and selfishness. What is asked of us is not greater technological skill, but deeper repentance for our wrongful and wasteful ways. What is demanded is a sense of sacrifice, which comes with cost but also brings about fulfillment. Only through such self-denial, through our willingness sometimes to forgo and to say “no” or “enough” will we rediscover our true human place in the universe."

Pope Benedict similarly said:

The relationship between individuals or communities and the environment ultimately stems from their relationship with God. When ‘man turns his back on the Creator’s plan, he provokes a disorder which has inevitable repercussions on the rest of the created order.”

So both Benedict and Bartholomew are saying that God wants us to be good stewards of His creation, and I have not one iota of a problem with that. God also made His creation for mankind to use (not abuse). But God won't let it be destroyed-he will allow individuals to destroy themselves, but not the rest.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You are really going over the edge, Root of Jesse. Where do you come up with such nonsense?

Forcing populations to ride bullet trains? How about solar powered automobiles? (My daughter's high-school class built one back in the 1990s for heaven's sake.) And pokey-old milk trains could be solar or wind powered too. In fact the LRT of the city of Calgary is entirely funded by wind power. And coming up are solar-powered roads which are very much safer than current highways.

Do you honestly think the whole world is windy enough to power a Rapid Transit System? Or solar? Where it works, great. But where it doesn't, forget about it. But nuclear power can be done nearly anywhere.

Anything we can do with fossil fuels can be done with other energy sources. So what really, really bothers you about switching to a different form of energy?

I don't have a problem with solar, wind, hydro or nuclear. I do have a problem with limiting choices. Another problem is where to put the wind farms. John Kerry didn't want a wind turbine disgracing his property on Cape Cod, poor baby. There's a lot of hypocrisy and agenda-driven thought out there, on all sides. As I said, I'm all for conservation, but if you think an electric car can get you conveniently from San Francisco to New York as fast as a fossil fuel driven car, you have another thing coming. Fossil fuel is more efficient, right now, than any other, except for nuclear.

Less safe vehicles? Evidence, please.

Have you seen what they make vehicles out of these days in order to make them get better mileage? They cannot make the engine more fuel efficient, so they have to make the car from lighter materials, which are more brittle, and destroy more readily on impact.

And no, the hunting practices of indigenous peoples did not contribute to the near-demise of the bison. The evidence of that is that they lived off bison for centuries with no discernible diminution in the size of the herds. And they used every bit of all the bison they killed. Unlike settler trophy-hunters who killed thousands of bison solely for heads and horns and left whole carcasses to rot--not even using the meat or skins. Some didn't even take trophies, shooting buffalo from train windows.

Too funny. Driving herds of buffalo over a cliff vs people shooting at them from a moving train. Settlers ate buffalo just as natives did.

Yes, conservation will help, but the aim is not to reduce emissions per vehicle or furnace or appliance, but to absolutely reduce emissions and absolutely reduce the ration of CO2 in the atmosphere (as well as other greenhouse gases.)

CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Plants use CO2 as food and produce oxygen.

 

[Root of Jesse]

btw do you know the difference between anthropogenic global warming and catastrophic global warming?

Anthropogenic global warming is that portion of current global warming attributable to human activity, especially use of fossil fuels, and amenable to regulation by changing human activity e.g. by switching to other forms of energy.

Really? That's news...

Catastrophic global warming is what occurs after tipping points are reached that pump so much new greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that nothing we can do will stop the near-annihilation of life on earth, very likely including most large animals like us. We are perilously close to several such tipping points. There are currently several areas in the Arctic where methane (a greenhouse gas 30 times more efficient at retaining heat than CO2) is bubbling from melting permafrost. Any serious erosion of more permafrost could spell game over in reining in climate change to manageable proportions.

Catastrophic global warming is what occurs when a volcano erupts, for example. When Pinatubo erupted in the 90's, they estimated that 6% of the ozone layer was depleted, which, if you take that to its logical conclusion, means that, if we had as few as 18 similar volcanic eruptions, the ozone layer would be completely gone. We HAVE had more than 18 similar eruptions. One continuously since 1983. And yet the ozone is not depleted. This means that it regenerates.
What do you think causes methane gas to bubble up? World Climate Report » ?Methane Time Bomb in Arctic Seas ? Apocalypse Not?

Not only are we overfishing the world's oceans, we are creating oxygen depleted dead zones in many areas, and the rise in ocean temperature has sent many species from Mediterranean-latitude waters to North Sea latitudes. And to top it all off, climate change also alters the pH of the ocean. It takes only an extremely tiny change in pH to make the ocean unlivable for many species. When we consider that 50% of atmospheric oxygen is produced by photosynthetic ocean algae, any threat to their survival threatens every air-breathing animal on the planet, including, of course, us. So that is another potential tipping point.

Which is where conservation comes in...

Many such photosynthetic species inhabit coral reefs, and cannot survive without coral. But warmer ocean waters also bleach coral, killing the living coral in the reefs. Coral reefs have been called the jungles of the ocean as they support a richly-diverse biota, much as jungles do. With most coral reefs in mortal danger, it is like turning these jungles into deserts.

You know what happens when the waters warm? Corals move north or south. They know how to survive. Then when the waters cool, they move back to where they were before.

The ice pack in the Arctic may be denser than usual, but so is the rate of calving icebergs. And now I am going to speculate because I haven't looked into the whys and wherefores of a recently expanding icepack. But I wonder if it has to do with more snowfall? If it is, that would also be a warning sign of the Arctic warming up.

I don't know your geography, but I grew up in Saskatchewan. I know that in northern climes, cold days are also clear days. Snow came with warmer days. Why? Because cold air, really cold air, cannot retain enough moisture to develop precipitation. And Arctic air is normally really cold air with seasonal snowfall at a minimum--much less than you get in more southern latitudes.

Down here, Arctic air passing over bodies of water produce snow. In the Northeast ,it's called lake effect snow. Other snow occurs when a cold front passes over the ocean, then comes ashore, and as it passes over the higher elevations, the moisture is wrung out of the air in the form of snow.

As I said, I haven't looked into this, so it is my personal speculation, but I would not assume an expanded ice pack is evidence of against global warming. It could well be the reverse.

I would also ask, is the area of the ice pack matched by thickness in the ice. If we have a larger winter ice pack, but it is new thin ice that will melt in the summer leaving the Arctic nearly ice free again, that is still very worrisome for the future of the Arctic peoples, fauna and flora.

Again, I am not saying that we should have unfettered and orgyistic use of fossil fuels to the exclusion of everything else. I think conservation has to be convenient and useful. For example, the area I live in, people very often (mostly) get into their cars alone, and drive 1-2 hours to get to their place of employment because mass transit in our area is inconvenient. That's wasteful, but necessary for the economy. Some companies allow employees to work from home one day a week, which effectively reduces the emissions of a single day by 10% or so. I used to have to drive into my office 1-2 hours every day. I switched jobs and now use a bus, so I don't drive at all. I love being able to conserve that way, but if the need arose, and I lost my job and had to start driving again, of course, I would. Meantime, let them perfect other means of energy production. I'm all for it. I would not feel comfortable driving an electric car today.

 

[MKJ]

Do you not think God can make good out of bad? For example, while a volcanic eruption causes immediate devastation, doesn't God's work make good come out of it? I believe that even our mistakes, for example, the pollution of the waters of the Great Lakes in the 60's, or the emission of chloroflorocarbons, God turns for the good.

I have no doubt that he does, but that doesn't mean he protects us from the temporal consequences of our actions. His turning human sin to the good relates particularly to our salvation, in the grand scheme of things. When we drop bombs on people, deplete aquifers, and create deserts, he doesn't stop that from happening.

We also make things better when we destroy things, for example, we almost eradicated malaria by formulating, and using, DDT to kill mosquitoes. (Since the ban on DDT, malaria has come back with a vengeance, BTW).
I don't believe God would allow mankind to destroy his planet. For example, we discovered (because God allowed it) nuclear fusion and fission. Initially it was used to create weapons of mass destruction, and we had the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction. We almost went to nuclear war, even. We also discovered that we could use nuclear reaction to create electricity.
Heck, even massive oil spills eventually turn back to good.

They can have positive effects as well as bad, sometimes. Not necessarily proportionally. I don't doubt that if we suffer the effects that are predicted - most of the world becomes unsuitable for agriculture, a massively reduced human population survives in the polar regions and in some areas near the ocean - there will be benefits. New animal life will develop, in the long term the earth will repair its systems, and maybe we will learn something important.

But this is a bit like saying the Fall was a good thing because it allowed God to send Christ. Perhaps we could learn the lesson first, and avoid massive suffering. In any case, sinfully using more than our fair share and harming the ecosystem is bad for our own souls.

That's called "weather", not climate change.

What do you mean by that? A sustained change in the equilebrium of the earths systems is climate change. Melting permafrost isn't weather (hence, the "perma"), a permanent thermocline where there wasn't one isn't weather. Those are systematic changes that will cause other systematic changes.

So both Benedict and Bartholomew are saying that God wants us to be good stewards of His creation, and I have not one iota of a problem with that. God also made His creation for mankind to use (not abuse). But God won't let it be destroyed-he will allow individuals to destroy themselves, but not the rest.

No, that is not all they are saying. What do you think they mean when they talk about an environmental crises or disorder in nature? If you have bothered to read the thoughts of these leaders, it is quite clear that they think that a terrible crises that will mean immense suffering is what is in the cards if we don't change.

No one thinks that people can somehow destroy the whole fabric of reality, though I don't know that it is impossible - that is after all what we teach about the Fall - that the whole fabric of reality was damaged, and that there has been massive suffering and death, including of plants animals, and nature, and many innocents, as a result.

In denying that we have that power you ultimately are denying that fundamental Christian teaching about the Fall.

What I can't figure out is where you have come up with this idea that God won't let us suffer the consequences for a massive insult to nature - I have only encountered it in very sectarian fundamentalists who believe in things like Dispensationalism, it isn't compatible with Catholic theology and it doesn't have any support in Catholic theology.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You keep asking me that - and I keep saying that we believe that Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity - fully God - from eternity past and for all eternity - 3 co-equal persons in the Godhead.

What part of that sounds like "An angel incarnated as man"???

-----------------------------------------------------------

What I did post was that in Genesis 18 God and 2 angels "appear in the form" of 3 men - but that does not mean God was man or that Angels are men. They have the "ability to appear in that form" so as to relate to Abraham -- that is all.

God the Son was the "Word" from the very beginning in John 1:1 - so he has had the job of conveying 'infinite God' to finite beings - and that means bridging an infinite gap. He has the ability to appear to Abraham as a man - but He was still God the Son.

He has only ever been incarnated however as one being/one form/one person. And that is Jesus the Christ, 2000 years ago.

If Jesus appeared in the form of a man or in the form of the Archangel -- it could only have been "the appearance" -- it could not be true incarnation and it could not be that He is merely a man or merely whatever other form he might choose to assume for the sake of communicating infinite God to finite beings.

In the walk to Emmaus story (narrative) in Luke - Christ appears as a normal man - not even as his former self but such that the two would not recognize him... and while that is great - He is still infinite God and not some regular Joe.

in Christ,

Bob

But your founder believed otherwise. Are you denying the doctrine of your founder?

 

[Root of Jesse]

I have no doubt that he does, but that doesn't mean he protects us from the temporal consequences of our actions. His turning human sin to the good relates particularly to our salvation, in the grand scheme of things. When we drop bombs on people, deplete aquifers, and create deserts, he doesn't stop that from happening.



They can have positive effects as well as bad, sometimes. Not necessarily proportionally. I don't doubt that if we suffer the effects that are predicted - most of the world becomes unsuitable for agriculture, a massively reduced human population survives in the polar regions and in some areas near the ocean - there will be benefits. New animal life will develop, in the long term the earth will repair its systems, and maybe we will learn something important.

But this is a bit like saying the Fall was a good thing because it allowed God to send Christ. Perhaps we could learn the lesson first, and avoid massive suffering. In any case, sinfully using more than our fair share and harming the ecosystem is bad for our own souls.




What do you mean by that? A sustained change in the equilebrium of the earths systems is climate change. Melting permafrost isn't weather (hence, the "perma"), a permanent thermocline where there wasn't one isn't weather. Those are systematic changes that will cause other systematic changes.



No, that is not all they are saying. What do you think they mean when they talk about an environmental crises or disorder in nature? If you have bothered to read the thoughts of these leaders, it is quite clear that they think that a terrible crises that will mean immense suffering is what is in the cards if we don't change.

No one thinks that people can somehow destroy the whole fabric of reality, though I don't know that it is impossible - that is after all what we teach about the Fall - that the whole fabric of reality was damaged, and that there has been massive suffering and death, including of plants animals, and nature, and many innocents, as a result.

In denying that we have that power you ultimately are denying that fundamental Christian teaching about the Fall.

What I can't figure out is where you have come up with this idea that God won't let us suffer the consequences for a massive insult to nature - I have only encountered it in very sectarian fundamentalists who believe in things like Dispensationalism, it isn't compatible with Catholic theology and it doesn't have any support in Catholic theology.

I never said that God won't let us suffer the consequences of our actions. I am saying that there is vast evidence that the earth recovers quite well from man-made AND natural disasters, and this provides hope and faith to me that God is completely in control.

 

[gluadys]

I never said that God won't let us suffer the consequences of our actions. I am saying that there is vast evidence that the earth recovers quite well from man-made AND natural disasters, and this provides hope and faith to me that God is completely in control.

Oh, I have no doubt at all that the earth will recover.

The more pertinent question for us is whether our own species can survive until it does. We had a mass extinction already going, largely due to human activity, and climate change just adds to that. The earth could recover minus all mammals, with arthropods replacing us the way mammals replaced the dinosaurs.