- Oct 4, 2010
- 13,243
- 6,313
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
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.
Hi zoii,
Sorry for the error, I'm old and my vision's bad. Thankfully, I'm not quite as blind as Isaac in his later years.
Unfortunately, my faith in what the Scriptures reveal to me goes a bit deeper than just the spiritual things and moral development. As I explained, of all the words written in the Scriptures, the majority of them deal with historical accounts. Especially the old covenant. I have already agreed with you that the Scriptures are not some 'scientific' tome. However, they do give us quite a bit of insight into future events, and there doesn't seem to be any warning or explanation of any kind that the world is going to be in any kind of catastrophic 'natural' danger when Jesus returns.
Now, after Jesus returns, yes, there are some issues concerning catastrophic events upon the earth, but they don't any of them seem to be caused by natural events. Therefore, while I'm in agreement that the earth is warming a bit, I'm not quite prepared to start running around like Chicken Little declaring that the sky is falling and we're destroying the earth, when God's word pretty well tells me that the earth is going to endure through seed time and harvest until the end that is prepared for it. At which time it won't much matter if the seas are over everyone's head.
Further, and this may just be an understanding that is peculiar to me, I also don't believe what 'science' tells us of the age or creation of the earth. So, not trusting them in that field, may make it easier for me to not have much trust in other things that they can't actually know, but can only guess, as the reduction in the sea level rise seems to show that, at least to some degree, they are doing.
If they knew that the glaciers in Glacier National Park would be gone by 2020...well, they'd be gone wouldn't they? If they knew that sea level rise was going to inundate many parts of the earth, and a third of the expected ice melt has already occurred...well, shouldn't we see at least 1/3 of the catastrophic change happening? I do understand, I believe, the limitations of scientific methodology. One of those limitations is that they can draw up hypothesis and make 'proven' claims based on their hypothesis being true, but a lot of it is based on the underlying hypothesis being true. As the future unfolds, as we've found at Glacier National Park, sometimes the full realization of those hypothetical claims don't actually play out as expected.
God bless,
In Christ, ted
Upvote
0