Why worry about global warming?

[Freodin]

That would do no more good than a snowflake in hell. If God sees fit to allow the climate to be warmer in the end of days, so be it. Who are we to question? If man went too far, he would be swatted back like a fly. So if man is causing it, heck, just add that to the sin result hall of shame.

This is God's planet. Both it, and God's people are forever, and will be OK, whatever happens, come hell or high water.

So if man is doing it, and it is wrong.... HE MUSTN'T DO ANYTHING TO STOP IT!!!

Wasn't there someone who said "Go and sin no more!"?

Nah, must have been part of the fantasy diffrent state fairy tale... religion.

 

[dad]

Why should god be cleaning up after our mess?

Why would you clean up a baby's mess in the diapers? He is greater than us. Not like His world could be eternally wrecked by little man. No way.

By the same logic, I could say, I shouldn't have to worry about a roof over my head, nor should I have to work for money, so I'm not going to work or do anything in life, I'm god's person and he'll take care of me.

No, that would not be the same logic. It would be more like a toddler stacking blocks. No matter how many he stacked, or knocked down, the high mountains would not be much affected.

God should look at us and be proud that we are fixing the problem ourselves and not relying on him all the time.

No idea what this insane little thought is supposed to mean. You really think man is fixing the problem? What, you recycled a beer bottle?

 

[dad]

So if man is doing it, and it is wrong.... HE MUSTN'T DO ANYTHING TO STOP IT!!!

Man can do whatever man wants, it won't make a planet that is pure and good and holy, and eternal. Of course man can try to behave, but let's face it, history shows he can't really behave at all. Let's face it.

Wasn't there someone who said "Go and sin no more!"?

The someone was saved by Jesus! That wasn't about recycling...really.

 

[Chalnoth]

Why would you clean up a baby's mess in the diapers? He is greater than us. Not like His world could be eternally wrecked by little man. No way.

Well, it isn't. This world will go on. The problems with global warming are mainly its problems for us, not for the rest of the planet. Why would your god stop us from ruining our own environment for us?

 

[dad]

Well, it isn't. This world will go on.

'It' isn't...what?? You have no possible clue what the world will do. Why prophesy?

The problems with global warming are mainly its problems for us, not for the rest of the planet.

Such is the way of sin! However, the salvation of God eliminates those problems.

Why would your god stop us from ruining our own environment for us?

It is not your own environment! And when believers are taken out of it, it will not be ours either. It is the sin environment. Pyeeew.

 

[Chalnoth]

'It' isn't...what?? You have no possible clue what the world will do. Why prophesy?

The world isn't going to be destroyed by us. That's beyond our scope. But we can change things enough to make things very uncomfortable for us. In fact, we absolutely will do that if we don't take positive action very soon to halt the changes we are generating, though perhaps not even that will be enough to halt some nasty consequences. And we'll also manage to kill off a lot of other species along the way.

 

[dad]

The world isn't going to be destroyed by us. That's beyond our scope. But we can change things enough to make things very uncomfortable for us. In fact, we absolutely will do that if we don't take positive action very soon to halt the changes we are generating, though perhaps not even that will be enough to halt some nasty consequences. And we'll also manage to kill off a lot of other species along the way.

Forget that Pollyanna pie in the sky nonsense. Man is in the sin state. He cannot save himself and all pretenses are pathetic.

 

[Nostromo]

This is a great example of why many religious people are dangerous.

 

[Ration]

This is a great example of why many religious people are dangerous.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is a great example of why many religious people are dangerous.

I take it you have never heard of the Malthusian principle, which justifies war on a scientific basis?

Or the idea of changing what the Bible calls a "child" to what scientists call a "fetus"?

Be it seven people in a space shuttle, or 1.5 million children per year, many scientific people are more dangerous.

 

[Ration]

Be it seven people in a space shuttle.

That was the fault of the maintenance crew, not the scientists. It was actually one of the worlds most prominant scientists who showed what happened with his famous courtroom display.

They died in the service of humanity and the quest for knowledge. While it was truly tragic, I can't think of a better way to go.

 

[mzungu]

This is a great example of why many religious people are dangerous.

 

[AV1611VET]

They died in the service of humanity and the quest for knowledge. While it was truly tragic, I can't think of a better way to go.

At least it was accidental, wasn't it?

 

[Nostromo]

I take it you have never heard of the Malthusian principle, which justifies war on a scientific basis?

Or the idea of changing what the Bible calls a "child" to what scientists call a "fetus"?

Be it seven people in a space shuttle, or 1.5 million children per year, many scientific people are more dangerous.

Does any of that negate what I said?

 

[Ration]

At least it was accidental, wasn't it?

No, NASA purposely killed 7 of their best and brightest. It was all over the news...

 

[mzungu]

No, NASA purposely killed 7 of their best and brightest. It was all over the news...

Yes NASA was offered more funding if it killed a minimum of 7 astronauts. Of course we all know that they were paid in pieces of silver!

 

[Freodin]

I take it you have never heard of the Malthusian principle, which justifies war on a scientific basis?

Or the idea of changing what the Bible calls a "child" to what scientists call a "fetus"?

Be it seven people in a space shuttle, or 1.5 million children per year, many scientific people are more dangerous.

I guess I'm a little behind my quota yet.... can I have your address?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does any of that negate what I said?

No, it doesn't.

Religious people are dangerous, as the Aum Shinri Kyo sect of Hinduism attests, or the ecumenical Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition, or the Atheist Proddings,* etc.

But not nearly -- not nearly -- as dangerous as scientific philosophy is concerned.

Do you know where the most dangerous place on the face of the earth is?

* Atheist Proddings are the promptings of religious people by atheists to act according to what the atheists think their holy scriptures demand of them, as a display of their sincerity.

 

[Nostromo]

But not nearly -- not nearly -- as dangerous as scientific philosophy is concerned.

That's probably because you believe in an absolute morality from on high, which would be threatened by a scientific outlook.

What do you consider dangerous about it?

Do you know where the most dangerous place on the face of the earth is?

Most dangerous to whom and in what way?

* Atheist Proddings

I take it you don't believe in personal responsibility.

 

[Jazer]

This is a great example of why many religious people are dangerous.

Dangerous in what way? Religion in itself has killed very few people in comparison to the non religious. You seem concerned about mans effect on the environment. Would we have been better off with Al Gore compared to Bush? The election was very close. I remember under Clinton he was not into taking money away from people to give it to some other cause. He tended to let people spend their own money and it usually turned out to stimulate the economy more then what they are able to do by over taxing people.