Re: [asa] finally convinced

From: John Walley <>
Date: Sat Dec 12 2009 - 07:50:16 EST

 resource. I have always thought that that was a valid and valuable perspective and I think I could be persuaded that AGW may be a judgement in response to that. But even so, I would still want to qualify it by limiting it to those that unconscionably or immorally benefitted from that and that excludes me. I make my living with my humble hands developing software and have never made a dime from any direct industrialist concern even through the stock market or investing. I did consult with GE Energy for several years but it was only on the IT side of the business. As a result, my conscience is pretty clean, both by how I make my living and my fairly frugal and green lifestyle, so naturally I resist all this alarmism about AGW. Therefore I tend to side with Beisner on this both spiritually and politically more than say for instance Al Gore. But then why is the political left that usually doesn't have much concern or respect for revealed proclamations of judgment from a righteous God so much on this bandwagon?  What's in it for them?  Are they truly concerned about the environment or are they relishing the opportunity to make the guilty pay for exploiting the world's resources and amassing wealth unjustly?  Or maybe a little of both? If the former, you could say that they were worshipping the creation instead of the creator, if the latter it confirms Beisner and other skeptics' claim that this is all just a massive transfer of wealth cloaked in hypocritical environmental rhetoric. So I hope you can see why skepticism about this AGW judgement hypothesis is justified. John   ________________________________ From: Jon Tandy <> To: Sent: Sat, December 12, 2009 1:19:05 AM Subject: RE: [asa] finally convinced 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 perish. [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 hell. [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 naļve 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 [] 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.   John               ________________________________ From:Randy Isaac <> To: 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?   Randy

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Dec 12 07:50:51 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 12 2009 - 07:50:51 EST