Re: Jerry Falwell -- global warming is "junk science"

From: Jim Armstrong <>
Date: Tue Feb 14 2006 - 18:33:11 EST

 From one larger perspective, mankind can probably cause no irreparable

We can certainly do great harm with respect to our own kind as humans
and other higher order living inhabitants, and we may do great damage to
the environment as valued (even altruistically) from our own
perspective. However, the historical record of earth shows that there
have in the past been great life-extinguishing events that occurred and
at the minimum certainly altered the course of earth history and
biological development. Yet, in each case, the stunningly robust and
relentless progression of life has replenished the earth - a bit
different in form, but replenished nonetheless.

Now I don't take that as any sort of license to do as we please and
exert lousy stewardship of the earth we have and know now. It certainly
would not be in the best interest of us human sorts, nor kind to our
progeny. It's just to say that if we do poorly, this particular
"experiment" (line of development) fails (to a greater or lesser
extent), and that God's creative purpose(s) are likely to be achieved in
alternate ways that we have difficulty imagining, with values that are
His own, and along time lines that are similarly essentially
irrrelevant to us. For us to continue to proceed fruitfully and
benevolently for many generations to come, we need to have a time
perspective and mindfulness whose horizons are well beyond the next 10,
or 100, or even 500 years with respect to our environment and its
resources. That won't happen with uninformed and shallow or naive
thinking. JimA

Tjalle T Vandergraaf wrote:

> I think there may be an underlying thought that God has made the Earth
> so robust that there's no way mankind can cause irreparable harm.
> Thus, the argument would then be that, no matter how much CO2 we spew
> into the air, global warming will not exceed certain levels and life
> will continue to be sustained. I don't necessarily hold to this but,
> even if this is the case (and we'd be foolish to push the limits to
> see if the theory holds!), there is the issue of Christian stewardship
> that includes both care for the environment and care for our fellowmen.
> Chuck Vandergraaf
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: []
> On Behalf Of
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 3:14 PM
> To:;;
> Subject: Re: Jerry Falwell -- global warming is "junk science"
> Janice wrote:
> Those who don't trust in God and aren't sure he knows what he is
> doing, will of course believe that God is in the process of learning
> something new from his creation.
> Yes, we must trust in God, but we are also "stewards" of his creation,
> and therefore responsible for it. Will not that same God also equally
> punish disobedience, sloth, and greed? Even be it all fully and
> completely "foreordained", that does not mean that sin will go
> unpunished.
> Of course, God could not have better teachers than elite, PC
> intellectuals who are bound and determined to show God that utopia on
> earth is possible. Of course this can't happen unless these thought &
> behavior police are able to get the absolute power and control they need.
> Even enemies will to tell you the truth sometimes. Maybe that is
> partly why Christ said "love your enemies".
> by Grace we proceed,
> Wayne
Received on Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:33:11 -0700

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 14 2006 - 18:33:54 EST