RE: [asa] finally convinced

From: Jon Tandy <>
Date: Sat Dec 12 2009 - 01:19:05 EST

I'm sure God would rather us choose Him based on His merits, without
resorting to fear tactics. However, if persuasion doesn't work, sometimes a
little fear is needed. Does God not use fear to call to repentance?


How about these?

[Luke 13:4-5] Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and
slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in
Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise

[Psa 11:6] Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an
horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup.

[Luke 17:29-32] But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire
and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in
the day when the Son of man is revealed. ... Remember Lot's wife.

[Mat 10:28] And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill
the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in

[Jonah 3:4] And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he
cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.


Beisner's argument is so na´ve it almost doesn't need comment, except that
there will be those who believe it. If the earth being "good" means it
won't experience natural perils, why is there death, disease, famine,
earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.? This and your question about why third-world
countries bear more burden of AGW effects are classic theodicy problems,
that have nothing to do with whether God created a good world or not.
Beisner would be better off arguing that catastrophic climate change, like
thorns and death, are the result of the Fall of Man, and part of the last
days judgment. He might even be able to make a better Biblical case for it.


I happen to believe that God (and the robustness of nature) can handle
corrections to the effects of AGW, even if some of the worse predictions
actually prove to be true, which I hope they don't. That doesn't mean that
human suffering won't result as part of the process. But I'm not inclined
to be driven by panic. However, his argument that we can simply dismiss the
whole concern about the effects on climate seems to eliminate any reason to
be concerned about stewardship over the environment at all. I suppose that
since God's earth was created "good", does this means there can't be acid
rain or destruction of natural habitats due to man's mismanagement of
creation, or that we shouldn't try to do anything about them?


Jon Tandy


From: [] On
Behalf Of John Walley
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 8:58 PM
To: Randy Isaac;
Subject: Re: [asa] finally convinced


One last for me as well but I have to respond to this.


Sarcasm aside, I see a grain of reasonable truth in this. It comes back to
the theology of AGW, I don't believe God created us just to judge us and
punish the earth. Like the Israelites trapped between the Red Sea and
Pharoah's army, they chose to believe that He didn't bring them out of Egypt
just to die in the wilderness, a belief which I also share.


As opposed to some on this list, I don't think we have incurred His judgment
for taking the coal or oil out of the ground or for using it to develop
technology that has benefitted the whole world. In fact I think the opposite
is true that He has raised up and worked through America and other Western
nations for this end.


I do think we are currently under His judgment for greedy materialistic
excesses and selfish conspicuous consumption and for neglecting the widows
and orphans, but not for lack of creation care. Further, we know that
Western nations have been the ones that supposedly earned God's judgement by
polluting the atmosphere but it will be the third world that pays the price
for it. How fair is that?


Beisner's attempt may be a little simplistic but it reflects faith which is
admirable. I think someone in the church needs to hold out hope to counter
the fatalism from the secular world. I don't believe God works through scare
tactics. You probably wouldn't approve of a fundamentalist church showing
your kids the 60's films "Image of the Beast" or "Distant Thunder", but what
passes today as AGW science in elementary schools is not much different. If
any of you have seen those films you will powerfully understand this point.


Not understanding this key theological distinction is what is causing
Christians to err on this issue.











From: Randy Isaac <>
Sent: Fri, December 11, 2009 9:23:04 PM
Subject: [asa] finally convinced

One more post tonight if I may. I just heard a very convincing argument
against AGW. A few minutes ago, Cal Beisner was interviewed on the Christian
TV network INSP. He pointed out that a planet that would be in peril from an
increase in atmospheric CO2 from 0.027% to 0.038% would not be a "good"
planet. But we know from Gen. 1 that the earth is good. Hence, global
warming isn't due to CO2 and advocating AGW is tantamount to dismissing God.


I hadn't thought of that. Its irrefutable logic leaves me speechless and
without response.


Where do I sign?




To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Dec 12 01:19:48 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 12 2009 - 01:19:48 EST