How concerned should Christians be about climate change?

[RDKirk]

Missouri is at much greater risk than many states. I consider everything blue and white to be reasonably safe from earthquakes.

2018 Long-term National Seismic Hazard Map

LOL, no.

Here in northern and central Texas (blue and white on your map) we're creating our own quakes by fracking within city limits.

 

[miamited]

But why? Why would you believe after everything that you've posted that we should be even remotely responsible in how we live on God's earth if dominion has nothing to do with good stewardship or responsibility? If God gave us dominion to live as we see fit, and what we see fit to do is plunder and exploit the earth for every last drop it can give us (as we've been systematically doing), then why should we be responsible?

I agree that as Christians we don't need to live our lives in fear, but at the same time, what example are we setting as God's representatives on earth when many unbelievers show more concern for God's beloved creation than we do?

How can we claim to love God if we treat everything he's created with disdain?

Hi bekkilyn,

I think the Scriptural question is how we can claim to love God, who we have not seen, if we don't love our brother, whom we have? I think there's a vast gulf between the idea that our waste products of manufacturing may be causing issues for people and this consideration that we are treating what God has created with disdain.

However, this thread is specifically addressing the issue of climate change and as I've said at least a couple of times, I'm not convinced that man's science that is telling us that we are destroying the earth, and that's the cause of climate change, is based on truth. I contend that God has planned and prepared for whatever mankind will throw at His creation. I think that Jesus' words telling us what the earth will be like when he returns again can be trusted. The earth will still be here and people will be living fairly satisfying lives on it when he does. Despite what we fear we have done or are doing with waste to destroy the earth. I don't believe that there's any chance that the earth is going to warm up enough to melt all of the ice. Having lived now through 50 years of it, I don't see the catastrophic effects that have been predicted up to this point. There was a thread just the other day that sometime in the past scientists expected the glaciers in Glacier National park to be gone by 2020. They recently took those signs down because its now 2020 and still many of the glaciers are there. Smaller yes, but still there. Somebody at least got the timeline wrong.

Further, if you trust what scientists tell you about the past, they claim that 150,000 years ago the whole state of Montana was covered in glacial ice. We've been losing it for about 150,000 years. What catastrophic effects have we suffered over the last 150,000 years that have been caused by this great loss of ice sheeting? Unfortunately, since I am pretty solidly convinced that 150,000 years ago neither the heavens nor the earth existed, I don't think scientists are understanding the past as well as they think they may be.

Weather often runs in cycles. We have hurricane predictors that have learned to read some of those signs and cycles and they make predictions on upcoming hurricane seasons based on them. So, my answer to the question of how concerned christians should be about climate change, is not very much. I rather expect Jesus to return long before the ice is all gone.

We are right this very moment in time working on a covenant with Israel to provide peace for them. That's one of the last signs that we have been given to expect before Jesus returns. Now, I'm not saying that the current administration will be the one to make this covenant that Daniel's prophetic writings tell us of, but the signs of the times are definitely drawing us closer to that day.

It's my understanding that the U.S. is the first beast told to us in the Revelation of Jesus Christ. We are the beast who has risen out of the sea. We are the beast for which all the nations follow and decry, "Who is like the beast?"

People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”

As far as the historical evidence as it stands today, the U.S. is the only nation that proudly proclaims that we came out of the sea of people of the earth. We are the only nation on the earth today that people ask, "who can wage war against it?" Every other nation can be brought down in war. Some may be more difficult than others, but I don't think anyone doubts that the U.S. is the nation that is most feared in war. The nation that other nations would say, "How can we wage war against them? They are too powerful with the mightiest armies of the earth." It's actually one of the claims that our present administration enjoys throwing out there. That we are today more powerful in military strength than we ever have been.

However, I digress.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Actually we do not. Most people think there are no faults in Missouri! Oops!

Hi keith,

I have to agree with sketcher. While there are many states that have fault lines, they are big states and there is still plenty of room in all of them to build reactors that don't sit atop those lines. Nuclear reactors today are designed, engineered and built with safe guards to safely shut down if there are indications of tremors.

The New Madrid fault zone in Missouri is in one very small area of the south eastern most point of the state. It sits close to the Mississippi River and there are still hundreds of square miles of the state in which a reactor could be built not even close to any known fault. But, one of the first safeguards in permitting for a nuclear reactor is doing geologic surveys to determine the stability of the area from the shocks of quakes.

The U.S. built it's first small reactor in 1958. That's 60 years of experience on the technology. According to ourworldindata.org, the safest form of energy production, by far, is nuclear energy.

Death rates from energy production per TWh
Death rates from air pollution and accidents related to energy production, measured in deaths per terawatt hours (TWh)


Brown coal 32.72
Coal 24.62
Oil 18.43
Biomass 4.63
Gas 2.82
Nuclear 0.07
CC BY
Source: Markandya and Wilkinson (2007)

Note: Figures include deaths resulting from accidents in energy production and deaths related to air pollution impacts. Deaths related to air pollution
are dominant, typically accounting for greater than 99% of the total.

I believe that nuclear energy production has proved itself to be safe and efficient. I happen to live less than 5 miles from Oconee power station, which has three operating reactors, and feel perfectly comfortable and safe in my home. It's a quite industry with only a few small whisps of steam as visible waste. There is, of course, the issue of spent fuel rod waste and that is stored on site in fuel rod pools.

According to Dukeenergy.com: Once fuel has been used in a reactor, it needs to be stored. Currently, all used nuclear fuel is stored at the plant site in either used fuel pools or in dry storage. The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that all the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry in nearly 50 years—if stacked end to end—would only cover an area the size of a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards.

Certainly we need to find a way to reuse or spent nuclear fuel rods. A Stanford report concluded:

In the United States, nuclear reprocessing was banned for the fear of nuclear proliferation. Additionally, twelve states have also banned nuclear plants completely, due to the fact that they produce radioactive waste. [7] If we were to lift the ban on nuclear reprocessing, we could reuse this waste and be now have the ability to create nuclear power plants in the United States without increasing the mass of waste produced. The example of other countries shows that nuclear proliferation is not as great a problem as once thought, as the nuclear fuel are highly guarded and nuclear materials can be transported safely. [7] In the end, nuclear reprocessing is a sure way to increase the amount of nuclear energy that our country produces while reducing the mass of nuclear waste.

The answer to reducing nuclear waste may well lie in producing more nuclear energy, but we need to lift bans that don't allow such processes. France, in particular, requires that spent fuel rods be re-used. They have one of the best and safest nuclear power processes in the world.

France's reactors generate about 75% of the country's electricity. France also is the world's largest electricity exporter, earning more than 3 billion Euro per year.

Source: World Nuclear Association

France is the second largest nuclear energy producer in the world, behind the U.S.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Zoii]

@AvgJoe and @miamited
Both of you want to give me your opinions why science is wrong. You quote what someone says or an event that occurs then align your thoughts on those matters to come up with your own theory about the climate.

What you both miss, is that I, and many in my generation, are done with people who offer their opinion. It means ZERO to me. Now that's not to disrespect you - but I take a pragmatic approach and listen to experts - if its something very serious then I want the evidence based views of as many experts in the field as possible. I don't listen to someone on Youtube for advice on treating a serious medical condition - I listen to my doctor.

Your opinion is completely at odds with the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists. Their position paper is easily accessed. That consensus has been repeated at numerous summits over the past decade and their research of some hundreds of thousands of papers, goes back fifty years examining data that goes back hundreds of thousands of years.

Don't ask me a technical question. @miated started talking about melting waters and then drew some conclusions that are at odds with climate scientists - Well Ted how do you expect me to answer. I'm not a climate scientist - what the hell would I know. I accept the advice of the massive consensus of experts - you're not an expert Ted. That's the end of it.

And that is what my generation repeats - We are done listening to the uninformed and the non-expert. If you do not have the requisite qualifications and extensive research background in climate science, then your opinion is worthless. Its of no more value than you advising on how to conduct cardiac surgery.

Lastly @miated you commented about brushfires and that they are in fact good and cause regeneration. If you come to my country, I'd strongly advise you to not utter such an opinion in public for the sake of your own welfare. We have lost forests the size of Texas and Florida combined. A million of marsupials, reptiles and birds lost. The insect invertebrate population gone. the biome completely disrupted. Utter how it's all a healthy thing and that it will all magically reappear, will get you in a fight for your ignorance.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How energy is sourced is the question, not whether energy is used. Check out how Norway is tackling the issue, and how Portugal has managed entire 24hr periods using nothing but renewable sources. Why some deny and ignore, others are doing something about it.

Norway and Portugal aren't the problem. It's the increasing consumption in China and India as well as the developing countries. They aren't too concerned with climate change. They want the luxuries that the west has enjoyed for decades.

 

[Strathos]

Hi strathos,

While I appreciate your analogy, I'm not sure it's as relevant as it might be. You're relating how a single father might deal with a single child that trashes his room in expectation of getting a better room anyway.

Most of mankind is not under any promise that they're going to receive a better room next. For those of us who are familiar with the Scriptures, God hasn't promised the world at large a better place. He has only promised that to those who are his children. Secondly, I'm not sure that we can equate some pollution around the world as 'trashing' the place. As I look around the globe I see a lot of places where the wallpaper is still on the walls and clean and fairly pristine. I gaze at the great mountains and forests of Colorado and I don't think I could find a prettier picture of God's earth anywhere else on the earth. But I do know that there are other places around the globe that are comparatively as beautiful. So I don't agree that 'mankind' has trashed his room.

'I only tore up some of the wallpaper, those patches over there are okay, see?'

I don't really find this to be a convincing argument.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

For a comprehensive overview, on the subject of climate change alarmism, checkout this video lecture, by Canadian climatologist and former professor, Dr. Tim Ball:

Wow, great presentation! I'm reversing all my positions on climate change (I do think we should plant more trees though).

 

[Tom 1]

Norway and Portugal aren't the problem. It's the increasing consumption in China and India as well as the developing countries. They aren't too concerned with climate change. They want the luxuries that the west has enjoyed for decades.

Lol what did you do with the other goalposts? Sure China and India have been creating a lot of industrial mess for a long time now - what is your point? They are doing so why should other countries bother? If your neighbour doesn’t look after his house, do you start trashing your own in protest?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Lol what did you do with the other goalposts? Sure China and India have been creating a lot of industrial mess for a long time now - what is your point? They are doing so why should other countries bother? If your neighbour doesn’t look after his house, do you start trashing your own in protest?

One can set goalposts wherever they choose. As per my OP what is the individual Christian's goalpost? Most people rely on others to change the world while they merely sit in judgment of the effort. In America whenever a politician promises to make the world a better place popcorn sales go up.

 

[miamited]

Hi zoli,

Good on ya, mate. Thanks for your reply.

Lastly @miated you commented about brushfires and that they are in fact good and cause regeneration. If you come to my country, I'd strongly advise you to not utter such an opinion in public for the sake of your own welfare. We have lost forests the size of Texas and Florida combined. A million of marsupials, reptiles and birds lost. The insect invertebrate population gone. the biome completely disrupted. Utter how it's all a healthy thing and that it will all magically reappear, will get you in a fight for your ignorance.

I understand that's likely a sore subject for you mates right now and likely will be for some time to come. Australia, like California here in the states, has an annual fire season that can be fairly ravaging. However, in my defense in making the comment, it came from what some might consider an 'expert' source: Sciencemag.org.

I certainly do agree that drier, hotter weather overall does increase fire starts. But drier, hotter weather is often cyclical. The Scriptures tell of an account that there was a 7 year drought in Egypt. Egypt, like parts of Australia and parts of California are desert ecosystems. Deserts are, by very nature, generally hot, dry, arid swaths of land. They are prone to going through seasons when the growth and underbrush become like tinder for a spark to turn into a raging inferno. While there is evidence that these types of fires are getting larger and worse as temperatures rise, the fact that there are fires has been a fairly regular occurrence for at least decades. They've been happening so regularly that we actually designate 'fire seasons' in these areas.

Finally, I'm not saying that all science is wrong. I'm saying that predictive science is often wrong. There isn't any doubt in my mind that the earth's mean temperature has been rising. I get that and I see that as a proven fact based on weather data gathered all over the globe. I also see the causal link between temperature rise and ice melt. I get that. Where my doubts come in is when those scientific facts are then cobbled together to make predictive announcements that aren't proven.

As I said, we have websites that are showing us that sea level rise is going to inundate some areas of various continents. That's a predictive claim, that so far, hasn't been proven out. Here from the Smithsonian Ocean:

Scientists with the Intergovernmental Project on Climate Change predict that global sea level will rise between 0.3 and 1 meter by 2100.

If we use the low end, that's about 1 foot. That's also predicated on this phenomenon continuing for the next 80 years in an even greater amount than it has been rising in the past. In 2016 it is claimed to have risen roughly 3 mm. However, according to 'science' the sea level has been even higher:

The current sea level is about 130 metres higher than the historical minimum. Historically low levels were reached during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), about 20,000 years ago. The last time the sea level was higher than today was during the Eemian, about 130,000 years ago.

Here's an article you might find interesting. Alarmists Are In Way Over Their Heads On Rising Ocean Claims

I'm going to bring forth one part of the article that supports my claim that 'predictive' science has often been wrong.

In any case, let’s review what IPCC has projected in their Summary for Policymakers reports crafted for prime time media audiences:

• The first assessment report (1990) showed a rising sea level range of 10-367 cm by the year 2100. That’s some range!
• The second report (1996) narrowed the range to 3-124 cm by 2100.
• The third report (2001) showed the range to be 11-77 cm by 2100.
• The fourth report (2007) originally showed 14-43 cm in draft…then changed it to 18-59 cm in final printed version.

The good news here, if there really is any, is that each of the successive summary report maximum estimates decreased, all being much smaller than the 600 cm sea level rise trumpeted by former NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science activist James Hansen and climate multi-millionaire Gore.

That data covers a seventeen year span of 'scientific' study. We go from a first predictive assessment that sea levels will rise between 10-367 cm. As the discussion points out, that's a really big range. But a 10 cm rise wouldn't really affect much land mass. However, the point that I think should not be overlooked, is that sea levels have fluctuated up and down, according to various scientific studies for hundreds of thousands of years. So, that begs the question, at least for me, how do we know that what we're seeing in sea level change isn't just a part of how the earth was created to be?

The last time the sea level was higher than today was during the Eemian, about 130,000 years ago. How do we know that we're not returning to that cycle of higher sea levels because such things as mean temperature and ice pack amounts ebb and flow as the natural construction of the planet?

Now, for the record, I don't buy much of that science about the earth being such and such a way 130,000 years ago. I don't believe it existed, but I'm merely pointing out what 'science' does tell us for those who do believe that science has the answers for us as to how we got here to be living on the planet earth in the year 2020.

Again, I understand that the world at large is going to always be running around like Chicken Little proclaiming that the sky is falling. The question, however, was how christians should respond? For me, as a believer, I believe Jesus' words that when he returns, mankind is going to be getting along pretty alright on the earth. Just as man and the earth were all looking pretty alright when that first raindrop fell in Noah's day.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[keith99]

Hi keith,

I have to agree with sketcher. While there are many states that have fault lines, they are big states and there is still plenty of room in all of them to build reactors that don't sit atop those lines. Nuclear reactors today are designed, engineered and built with safe guards to safely shut down if there are indications of tremors.

The New Madrid fault zone in Missouri is in one very small area of the south eastern most point of the state. It sits close to the Mississippi River and there are still hundreds of square miles of the state in which a reactor could be built not even close to any known fault. But, one of the first safeguards in permitting for a nuclear reactor is doing geologic surveys to determine the stability of the area from the shocks of quakes.

The U.S. built it's first small reactor in 1958. That's 60 years of experience on the technology. According to ourworldindata.org, the safest form of energy production, by far, is nuclear energy.

Death rates from energy production per TWh
Death rates from air pollution and accidents related to energy production, measured in deaths per terawatt hours (TWh)


Brown coal 32.72
Coal 24.62
Oil 18.43
Biomass 4.63
Gas 2.82
Nuclear 0.07
CC BY
Source: Markandya and Wilkinson (2007)

Note: Figures include deaths resulting from accidents in energy production and deaths related to air pollution impacts. Deaths related to air pollution
are dominant, typically accounting for greater than 99% of the total.

I believe that nuclear energy production has proved itself to be safe and efficient. I happen to live less than 5 miles from Oconee power station, which has three operating reactors, and feel perfectly comfortable and safe in my home. It's a quite industry with only a few small whisps of steam as visible waste. There is, of course, the issue of spent fuel rod waste and that is stored on site in fuel rod pools.

According to Dukeenergy.com: Once fuel has been used in a reactor, it needs to be stored. Currently, all used nuclear fuel is stored at the plant site in either used fuel pools or in dry storage. The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that all the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry in nearly 50 years—if stacked end to end—would only cover an area the size of a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards.

Certainly we need to find a way to reuse or spent nuclear fuel rods. A Stanford report concluded:

In the United States, nuclear reprocessing was banned for the fear of nuclear proliferation. Additionally, twelve states have also banned nuclear plants completely, due to the fact that they produce radioactive waste. [7] If we were to lift the ban on nuclear reprocessing, we could reuse this waste and be now have the ability to create nuclear power plants in the United States without increasing the mass of waste produced. The example of other countries shows that nuclear proliferation is not as great a problem as once thought, as the nuclear fuel are highly guarded and nuclear materials can be transported safely. [7] In the end, nuclear reprocessing is a sure way to increase the amount of nuclear energy that our country produces while reducing the mass of nuclear waste.

The answer to reducing nuclear waste may well lie in producing more nuclear energy, but we need to lift bans that don't allow such processes. France, in particular, requires that spent fuel rods be re-used. They have one of the best and safest nuclear power processes in the world.

France's reactors generate about 75% of the country's electricity. France also is the world's largest electricity exporter, earning more than 3 billion Euro per year.

Source: World Nuclear Association

France is the second largest nuclear energy producer in the world, behind the U.S.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I was taking issue with the idea that there are lots of places with no faults, nothing more.

I very much agree with what you posted. Actually it is fairly easy to build a containment structure for a reactor that could avoid any release of radiation even if it were right on the epicenter of a major quake. I can't say the same for oil storage tanks which are a couple orders of magnitude larger. Somehow nuclear power inspires terror in many people but having several tank farms that are within a stones throw of homes or freeways here in Southern California does not seem to inspire any fear.

 

[miamited]

I was taking issue with the idea that there are lots of places with no faults, nothing more.

Hi keith,

Right. I was pointing out that I thought you were wrong in your understanding of that. There are lots of places with no faults.

I think I assessed your comment correctly. Here is sketcher's comment in quote:

The newer reactors are much cleaner than the older ones, and we have plenty of land in the US that isn't near a fault line.

Here is your response to his comment. In the post you 'quoted' his comment and then you wrote:

Actually we do not. Most people think there are no faults in Missouri! Oops!

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant when you replied 'Actually we do not.' What were you saying that we do not?

Let me know it there is still any misunderstanding. Yes, I did then digress into some, what I felt was, pertinent information to the issue of nuclear power facilities and how they are protected against tremors and their general safety record.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[AvgJoe]

Wow, great presentation! I'm reversing all my positions on climate change (I do think we should plant more trees though).

We should, definitely, plant more trees and I heard the US will be joining the Trillion Trees initiative. This morning, I saw that the GOP are working on their on conservation plan, which appears to be a sensible approach~~~> www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/28/exclusive-gop-crafting-conservation-focused-anti-green-new-deal/

 

[Zoii]

Good on ya, mate

Please don't call me mate - and some of us don't like being mocked for the way we speak.

The first assessment report (1990) showed a rising sea level range of 10-367 cm by the year 2100. That’s some range!

Wow you gave a super-long answer focussing largely on sea-levels. Now I did say - what the hell do I know - Still I do have a recently attained degree in science, so I'll at least will say this - why are you so shocked that a report written thirty years ago was revised to narrower parameters as further data was gained over the ensuing three decades. Sounds both responsible and sensible. And for some reason your reasoning is - heck, it now appears to be only half a metre rise - Do you hear what you're saying - HALF A METRE - BASELINE. That alone sinks Micronesia nevermind what happens with swell and storm surges.

But I'm not a climate expert - I wont debate it. You think the revised estimate is fine well - there's a lot of countries in the Pacific that think otherwise.

Australia, like California here in the states, has an annual fire season

The way you express this sounds like the Australian experience was just an annual event. You are poorly informed - it was not and is still continuing. Our country has breaken records year on year over past decade - drought, storms surges, fires.

Here's an article you might find interesting

Oh no, not him again. Fred Singer. yes they trot him out every time they want to open another coal mine or conservatives write a policy - Bring out Fred.

Look at it this way. You have cancer. You get the advice of 12 000 surgeons (the number of climate scientists signing to the consensus statement). They advise surgery. But you find one surgeon who tells you - Meh, relax Ted - cancer wont kill you. Enjoy your life - you'll be fine. YOU are telling me to take the advice of this one guy who is at odds to the consensus. That doesn't sound like good advice to me. It sounds perilous.

The Scriptures tell of an account that there was

Please - The bible was never intended to be a scientific compendium so - lets not use that as a reliable source. Its job is to provide spiritual advice - so leave it there.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

The bible was never intended to be a scientific compendium so - lets not use that as a reliable source.

Yeah, forget the Bible. That girl with the sign is a reliable source, right?

 

[Zoii]

Yeah, forget the Bible. That girl with the sign is a reliable source, right?

What a totally ridiculous comment - Just to steer you back on track:
The girl holding the sign is protesting her concerns.
She is concerned because she has been advised she should be - by a consensus of 12000 of the worlds climate experts and every single climate, scientific and space agency in the world. She figures that because they have the requisite knowledge and research expertise, and that there is such a strong consensus, she should listen.

That girl isnt interested in someone who makes comments that are sarcastic and unscientific.

As for the bible it is a spiritual text written a few thousand years ago when the sun was thought to rotate around the earth - It was never intended to be a scientific text of climatology

 

[AvgJoe]

by a consensus of 12000 of the worlds climate experts

Perhaps, you're referring to the 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers, whose abstracts were searched, to determine, to what degree, each paper endorsed the consensus view. The following website agrees with your view on climate change and I'm linking to it to verify my statement~~~> Survey of 12,000 studies finds strong agreement on climate change

Those 12,000 papers, were not authored by 12,000 different scientists, many of the scientists had more then one paper, in the study. Dr. Tol had 122 papers that fit the study criteria, although 112 were omitted so, of the 12,000 papers in the study, 10 of them were his. This isn't a consensus of 12,000 different scientists. The following link verifies my statement about Dr. Tol and shows how poorly the consensus study, referenced above, was completed, by actually asking the scientists if their paper was classified correctly~~~> www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

 

[miamited]

Morning zoli,

Thanks for your response. I'm sorry for mocking your cultural speech patterns. I honestly enjoy the way Britons and Aussies speak. I'll leave this last post and from there we'll all have to just live with our beliefs and trusts.

Please - The bible was never intended to be a scientific compendium so - lets not use that as a reliable source. Its job is to provide spiritual advice - so leave it there.

I honestly don't understand people who make the claim that the Scriptures aren't some kind of scientific genre of writing to promote this idea that the claims made within its pages are, therefore, not to be trusted as truthful claims. The Scriptures are, for the most part, an historical account. If I read a biography of the life of Abraham Lincoln and it lays out several claimed facts of events that happened in his life and his response to them as he lived his life, because it's not written from some 'scientific' point of view, am I not to trust what it tells me about his life?

You and I likely have a very different understanding of just what exactly the Scriptures are, so far as who wrote it and its trustworthiness in what it tells us. For me, the simplest way to put it, is that God wrote a book. Yes, the pen and papyri scribblings were made by the hands of men, but the thoughts and knowledge of what is written flow from the knowledge and wisdom of God. Jesus, in referring to the Scriptures declared that they were the 'word of God'. That what was contained in them was true and that they would never pass away, until the end of this age. Paul also, in explaining the utmost importance of there even being a Jewish people, said that the chief importance was that they had been entrusted with the oracles of God. Paul denies that what is contained in the Scriptures comes from the mind of mortal man and rather describes that they were the knowledge of the Holy Spirit of God leading them to write what they wrote.

I absolutely agree that the Scriptures are not written as one would expect to find the droll and equation filled writings of some scientific research paper. A paper filled with studied and researched causes and effects by some one or group of minds holding various and hallowed degrees from great universities with a wall of said degrees surrounding their respective office desks. But I fail to see how that, in and of itself, makes the simple claims of the Scriptures unreliable.

God's word simply says, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." Now, it would seem that just because the source of those words doesn't come from some university trained mind who has done research papers and thesis work to earn some great degree, the facts contained in that statement can't be trusted to be true. Would that sum up your position?

God's word simply says, "Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left.

Again, your understanding would be that because those words weren't written with some scientific form of prose, they can't be trusted either? The Scriptures contain literally hundreds of statements of fact. Accounts of events that happened in real time as people lived out their lives upon the earth. You believe that because the form of writing doesn't meet your requirement for a scientific research paper, those facts aren't to be believed? I don't understand that logic.

For me, one of the greatest examples to show that men wrote the Scriptures as they were led by the Holy Spirit, is the account of the prophecy given to Daniel in his writings. Specifically, the prophecy found in his account we mark now as Daniel chapter 9. According to the Scriptures, this event happened in the first year of King Darius' rule over Babylon. It is written as a first person account. It starts out, "...n the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years." Then the account goes on to foretell of a prophetic event that will come to pass among the people of God. Daniel writes that there would come a day that a certain decree would be issued. That day turns out to be roughly 100 years, from the day that this account is claiming the prophetic words were given to Daniel. How did Daniel know that with such certainty? Because that event that wasn't gong to happen for another 100 years started a clock that was going to culminate at a very specific time. So, it isn't like Daniel could just imagine that one day such a decree might be issued and it just happened to work out that Daniel was right. Not at all, the decree had to be issued at a specific moment in time for the remaining prophecies to unfold as scheduled. I contend that only a God who knows the beginning from the end and directs the events of His people to work out His will, could be the source of such information.

No, not science. An even more trustworthy source than the minds of scientifically trained men. The very mind and thoughts of God revealed to certain men through the working of God's Holy Spirit. This is what Paul proclaims as fact!

So, as I've said, you and I have a somewhat different take on the trustworthiness of what is written in the Scriptures. You doubt the statements of fact made because they don't emanate from some scientifically trained and degreed mind of some person that lays out all the equations that lead up to the facts of the events. Me, I believe that God wrote a book. I believe that God does know the end from the beginning. That the purpose of His writing His book is that we might know who He is, and all that He has done that we might live on this spinning ball of rock and magma. That the very reason that I sit here at my desk in the year 2020 typing out this explanation of the Scriptures to you, is because God did all of those things that He claims in His book to have done.

For me, there is no more reliable source of the past and the future, than the Scriptures. Scientists are certainly free to do their work to try and prove or disprove what they believe to be the truth of such things. But I side with Jesus. God's word is truth.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Zoii]

Morning zoli,

Thanks for your response. I'm sorry for mocking your cultural speech patterns. I honestly enjoy the way Britons and Aussies speak. I'll leave this last post and from there we'll all have to just live with our beliefs and trusts.



I honestly don't understand people who make the claim that the Scriptures aren't some kind of scientific genre of writing to promote this idea that the claims made within its pages are, therefore, not to be trusted as truthful claims. The Scriptures are, for the most part, an historical account. If I read a biography of the life of Abraham Lincoln and it lays out several claimed facts of events that happened in his life and his response to them as he lived his life, because it's not written from some 'scientific' point of view, am I not to trust what it tells me about his life?

You and I likely have a very different understanding of just what exactly the Scriptures are, so far as who wrote it and its trustworthiness in what it tells us. For me, the simplest way to put it, is that God wrote a book. Yes, the pen and papyri scribblings were made by the hands of men, but the thoughts and knowledge of what is written flow from the knowledge and wisdom of God. Jesus, in referring to the Scriptures declared that they were the 'word of God'. That what was contained in them was true and that they would never pass away, until the end of this age. Paul also, in explaining the utmost importance of there even being a Jewish people, said that the chief importance was that they had been entrusted with the oracles of God. Paul denies that what is contained in the Scriptures comes from the mind of mortal man and rather describes that they were the knowledge of the Holy Spirit of God leading them to write what they wrote.

I absolutely agree that the Scriptures are not written as one would expect to find the droll and equation filled writings of some scientific research paper. A paper filled with studied and researched causes and effects by some one or group of minds holding various and hallowed degrees from great universities with a wall of said degrees surrounding their respective office desks. But I fail to see how that, in and of itself, makes the simple claims of the Scriptures unreliable.

God's word simply says, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." Now, it would seem that just because the source of those words doesn't come from some university trained mind who has done research papers and thesis work to earn some great degree, the facts contained in that statement can't be trusted to be true. Would that sum up your position?

God's word simply says, "Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left.

Again, your understanding would be that because those words weren't written with some scientific form of prose, they can't be trusted either? The Scriptures contain literally hundreds of statements of fact. Accounts of events that happened in real time as people lived out their lives upon the earth. You believe that because the form of writing doesn't meet your requirement for a scientific research paper, those facts aren't to be believed? I don't understand that logic.

For me, one of the greatest examples to show that men wrote the Scriptures as they were led by the Holy Spirit, is the account of the prophecy given to Daniel in his writings. Specifically, the prophecy found in his account we mark now as Daniel chapter 9. According to the Scriptures, this event happened in the first year of King Darius' rule over Babylon. It is written as a first person account. It starts out, "...n the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years." Then the account goes on to foretell of a prophetic event that will come to pass among the people of God. Daniel writes that there would come a day that a certain decree would be issued. That day turns out to be roughly 100 years, from the day that this account is claiming the prophetic words were given to Daniel. How did Daniel know that with such certainty? Because that event that wasn't gong to happen for another 100 years started a clock that was going to culminate at a very specific time. So, it isn't like Daniel could just imagine that one day such a decree might be issued and it just happened to work out that Daniel was right. Not at all, the decree had to be issued at a specific moment in time for the remaining prophecies to unfold as scheduled. I contend that only a God who knows the beginning from the end and directs the events of His people to work out His will, could be the source of such information.

No, not science. An even more trustworthy source than the minds of scientifically trained men. The very mind and thoughts of God revealed to certain men through the working of God's Holy Spirit. This is what Paul proclaims as fact!

So, as I've said, you and I have a somewhat different take on the trustworthiness of what is written in the Scriptures. You doubt the statements of fact made because they don't emanate from some scientifically trained and degreed mind of some person that lays out all the equations that lead up to the facts of the events. Me, I believe that God wrote a book. I believe that God does know the end from the beginning. That the purpose of His writing His book is that we might know who He is, and all that He has done that we might live on this spinning ball of rock and magma. That the very reason that I sit here at my desk in the year 2020 typing out this explanation of the Scriptures to you, is because God did all of those things that He claims in His book to have done.

For me, there is no more reliable source of the past and the future, than the Scriptures. Scientists are certainly free to do their work to try and prove or disprove what they believe to be the truth of such things. But I side with Jesus. God's word is truth.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Hi Ted (and by the way my name is Zoii, NOT Zoli)
I have no issues with your faith in the bible in terms of it being a tool for your spiritual and moral development.

It is of no relevance though in a discussion about climate change. It just isn't a scientific text in any way shape of form. Hence - for those of my generation concerned for our future, we look to the scientific consensus on Climate science, not the bible.

 

[Zoii]

Perhaps, you're referring to the 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers

No I wasn't - which makes the rest of your post incorrect as well.

I make reference to The UN Convention of climate scientists with some 12000 registrants
(I attach their outcome statements - these are regarded as high end experts)

and the over 31000 participants in studies on scientific consensus. I attach a paper studying consensus with the following summary:

Consensus on Consensus - Cook et al. (2016)
Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.