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

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Fri Feb 17 2006 - 16:33:41 EST

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Janice Matchett
  To: George Murphy ; Kenneth Piers ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 2:24 PM
  Subject: Re: Jerry Falwell -- global warming is "junk science"

  At 01:36 PM 2/17/2006, George Murphy wrote:

    On 20 January I sent the following to Janice & the list in reply to some comments of hers in the same spirit as below about global warming:

  ## Sorry, but I was traveling and didn't see it

    Janice -

    Could you please explain (i.e., actually explain, not just give a link to some one else's views or a smart alec remark) how saying that human activity has had a particular effect on the environment cuts God down to human level? Does divine sovereignty mean that God always keeps our actions from having deleterious effects?

    & note that these questions are quite independent of whether or not the above claim about the Gulf is correct, or what my views on the matter are. & please spare us any rhetoric about fascism &c.
     
    She has never replied. Now (below) she is repeating the same sort of claim, that people who were concerned about non-degradable plastics were ignoring God.

  ### Thanks not my implication.

  What does that mean? That you didn't say "Of course, they weren't banking on a God whose creation is capable of handling non-problems like man-made plastics [or anything else]"?

  If you had read my previous comments on this subject, you would know that I believe there are only two religions. Arminians (even the ones sitting in the pews among, or presuming to actually "teach" those who hold to the biblical worldview) have a god they can't trust because he is too small.

  Among other their other faulty beliefs, they think God "needs" them.

  Your confusion continues. One hardly needs to be an Arminian (which I'm not BTW) to think that humans actions can result in disasters.
   
  Janice never states a coherent environmental theology and only ridicules those who are concerned about environmental problems. It seems to me that the only reasonable inference from her statements is that she does indeed think that God will always keep our actions from having deleterious effects. If this is correct then it would be instructive if she would explain how she reaches that conclusion. If this inference is wrong then it would be helpful if she would explain what she does mean when she repeatedly accuses those who warn of environmental problems of ignoring divine sovereignty, cutting God down to size, &c. & if she doesn't want to do either & thus make any genuine contribution to conversations, then she should have the courtesy to keep quiet.

  ### Were you on auto-pilot during that exchange I had with you when I tried to explain the difference between conservation and extreme evironmentalist whackoism? You'll find that exchange in the archives if you missed it the first time.

  & if you'll check the archives you'll see that you dodged the questions I posed there, which were essentially the same questions I've just posed again. (& the question is not the distinction you suggest.) To repeat, "Could you please explain (i.e., actually explain, not just give a link to some one else's views or a smart alec remark) how saying that human activity has had a particular effect on the environment cuts God down to human level? Does divine sovereignty mean that God always keeps our actions from having deleterious effects?"
  & again, please spare us the pejorative language. That may be more fun than civil discussion but it's not nearly as helpful.

   Shalom
  George
  http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Fri Feb 17 16:34:18 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 17 2006 - 16:34:18 EST