|
Post by Deimos on Mar 31, 2009 22:19:51 GMT -5
Why are Christians against the concept of global warming. it makes no sense
|
|
D'Coke
Full Member
In the service of the Church of Darwinian Materialism
Posts: 106
|
Post by D'Coke on Mar 31, 2009 22:34:39 GMT -5
I know a Muslim who believes it, because it confirms his views about the end times. Seriously, I had no idea Muslims had such a belief until I met a fairly Liberal group of them who had a library full of lit that 'confirmed' the end times stuff. Environmental, civilization-destroying asteroid. Get with god before it gets you.
|
|
|
Post by Trevelyan on Mar 31, 2009 22:37:02 GMT -5
Because this theory goes against the idea that the earth was custom made for humans and all of our activities. It shows that instead the earth is a naturally occurring system that is not under the direct control of some all powerful being. Mankind being able to influence the world via global warming would mean that we are in fact in control of our own destiny.
Of course, you could also say that it points out that if god did in fact create the world he didn't do a quality job and we should be looking into whether or not we're still under warranty.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 31, 2009 22:38:35 GMT -5
I think it has more to do with them worshiping the GOP than god. St. Bush said it didn't exist, therefore it doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by machiavelli on Mar 31, 2009 22:46:19 GMT -5
Yeah, after arguing with a few of them, i've noticed their hatred for science runs really deep. One even replied to me:
"If CO2 REALLY causes global warming, then why don't you save the planet by killing yourself"
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 31, 2009 22:53:55 GMT -5
Yeah, after arguing with a few of them, i've noticed their hatred for science runs really deep. One even replied to me: "If CO2 REALLY causes global warming, then why don't you save the planet by killing yourself" This, not to mention that global warming being true means they have to do something to care for the planet. They don't want to, not only is Jesus coming back soon, but God gave the planet to us to do as we please.
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 31, 2009 23:08:10 GMT -5
It's one hell of a generalization to say that Christians are against the idea of global warming. Even some prominent evangelicals have come out saying that we need to take action, and also the Archbishop of Canterbury. Many evangelicals in America insist it isn't real because of the unholy alliance between the religious right and big business, but global warming has become one of the fault lines in the current break up of the Regan coalition.
I live in Georgia. and know a lot of very conservative people, and I've never met anyone who espouses the kind of virulently anti-global warming idiocy that our friends over at Rapture Ready subscribe to. Many of them don't believe that it's happening, but that is, from what I've seen, more the result of listening to too much right-wing talk radio than some twisted interpretation of the Bible.
Remember, the crazies we get on this site are the fringe, not the mainstream (even though some of their ideas and attitudes are somewhat mainstream.) Don't think that all of us are like them, or even most of us.
|
|
ouabache
Junior Member
Official Pope
Posts: 73
|
Post by ouabache on Apr 1, 2009 2:15:08 GMT -5
Hope that explains it for you.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 1, 2009 4:08:32 GMT -5
Here in the US, some global warming supporters have a habit of taking an "us vs. them" approach to the issue: either you're behind global warming and initiatives to curb it 100% or you're completely against it.
As a result, people who do tend to believe in global warming but express skepticism at the pundits or urge caution in rolling out initiatives are frequently regarded as no better than the people who deny that it exists. Since there's division within Christianity over the matter (some deny it, some support it, others simply want questions answered first), Christianity as a whole is regarded as opposing it.
For example, a year or so back it came out that NASA's algorithms were wrong; a re-calculation of the data and the numerical metrics showed that the "hockey stick" shape of temperature increase wasn't as pronounced as first thought and that the hottest year on record was actually in the 1930s. Some of your more moderate and conservative voices raised the incident as proof that we needed to act more cautiously in the future and double-check the data before raising an alarm. Those voices were regarded as being no better than the villain-of-the-week from "Captain Planet."
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 1, 2009 6:56:43 GMT -5
For example, a year or so back it came out that NASA's algorithms were wrong; a re-calculation of the data and the numerical metrics showed that the "hockey stick" shape of temperature increase wasn't as pronounced as first thought and that the hottest year on record was actually in the 1930s. Some of your more moderate and conservative voices raised the incident as proof that we needed to act more cautiously in the future and double-check the data before raising an alarm. Those voices were regarded as being no better than the villain-of-the-week from "Captain Planet." Skyfire - how many fucking times have we asked you to cite your utter rubbish, so we can tell if it's your own idiocy or someone elses biased crap! 1/. The algorthims were not WRONG. 2/. The NASA did not make that graph, three climatologists/meteorologists/university professors wrote a paper that was peer reviewed and published in Nature. 2a/. NASA did however efffectively refute the work of the two guys who brought up the contraversy, pointing out the critical data that they ignored in order to make their claim - they only concentrated on one data set, not everything. Tree rings were only one minor piece of evidence the original authors looked at in order to calculate temperatures for this period. 3/. Statistically insignificant and isolated regional temperature anomalies don't mean jack shit. 4/. The 'contraversy' concerns a small segment of the methodology used to calculate temperatures for a period that occurred over 500 fucking years ago, not the 30's. We'd appreciate it if the villian of the week refrained from being Captain Dumbass for once! PLEASE! [Edit to add:] v V v And it wasn't from bloody last year, it was from 2005! Since then the NorthWest passage has opened up. Also, since you seem to have a thing with NASA, and the UN, so undoubtedly the WMO, UNFCCC, IPCC, etc, why don't you start with this page from NOOA. www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 1, 2009 7:27:51 GMT -5
Here in the US, some global warming supporters have a habit of taking an "us vs. them" approach to the issue: either you're behind global warming and initiatives to curb it 100% or you're completely against it. As a result, people who do tend to believe in global warming but express skepticism at the pundits or urge caution in rolling out initiatives are frequently regarded as no better than the people who deny that it exists. Since there's division within Christianity over the matter (some deny it, some support it, others simply want questions answered first), Christianity as a whole is regarded as opposing it. For example, a year or so back it came out that NASA's algorithms were wrong; a re-calculation of the data and the numerical metrics showed that the "hockey stick" shape of temperature increase wasn't as pronounced as first thought and that the hottest year on record was actually in the 1930s. Some of your more moderate and conservative voices raised the incident as proof that we needed to act more cautiously in the future and double-check the data before raising an alarm. Those voices were regarded as being no better than the villain-of-the-week from "Captain Planet." Even if I were to (foolishly) believe what you are saying is in any way true, how is science in its willingness to correct a potential mistake or continually reconfiguring data to get the most accurate readings possible worse than latching onto early 19th century racism and refusing to change for 150 years? Science doesn't claim to have the answers, religion does. Science shouldn't be blamed for owning up to the truth or for NOT making definitive claims.
|
|
|
Post by Death on Apr 1, 2009 7:56:07 GMT -5
I being really cynical here but in my defence I have the events of the past eight years to kinda support my view.
I think the gop knows, and of course the gop is the party of the religious nuts, and they are purposely obstructing any constructive measures that would ameliorate the effects of global climate change.
Why would they do such a thing. Because they know that gcc will bring war and they want to sell guns and arms.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 1, 2009 8:04:06 GMT -5
I being really cynical here but in my defence I have the events of the past eight years to kinda support my view. I think the gop knows, and of course the gop is the party of the religious nuts, and they are purposely obstructing any constructive measures that would ameliorate the effects of global climate change. Why would they do such a thing. Because they know that gcc will bring war and they want to sell guns and arms. Wow, that is cynical. The more nearsighted point of view would be that certain established industries were the incumbents complete with lobbying power and a vested interest to stifle competition with emerging technologies instead of embracing them. It's about as insane (and myopic) as Ford lobbying for relaxed construction, safety and mileage standards. The pennies you save now come back to bite you in the ass a thousand fold a couple of decades later...
|
|
|
Post by Death on Apr 1, 2009 8:19:34 GMT -5
I being really cynical here but in my defence I have the events of the past eight years to kinda support my view. I think the gop knows, and of course the gop is the party of the religious nuts, and they are purposely obstructing any constructive measures that would ameliorate the effects of global climate change. Why would they do such a thing. Because they know that gcc will bring war and they want to sell guns and arms. Wow, that is cynical. The more nearsighted point of view would be that certain established industries were the incumbents complete with lobbying power and a vested interest to stifle competition with emerging technologies instead of embracing them. It's about as insane (and myopic) as Ford lobbying for relaxed construction, safety and mileage standards. The pennies you save now come back to bite you in the ass a thousand fold a couple of decades later... you try living in the states and not be cynical And then there are the industries who stand to make money from solutions. Anyone else notice that the solutions presented to us always comprise spending and using technology, when really, the easiest thing to do would be to completely abandon the materialist view that "things" solve problems. IOW, stop making, buying and using stuff
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Apr 1, 2009 8:31:33 GMT -5
Anyone else notice that the solutions presented to us always comprise spending and using technology, when really, the easiest thing to do would be to completely abandon the materialist view that "things" solve problems. IOW, stop making, buying and using stuff Once again I have to disagree with this, since we still need to buy groceries and clothing and whatnot. What we SHOULD do is stop making everything in China and quit buying their worthless plastic shit that breaks two seconds after you get it home or poisons you. Let's get back to making QUALITY products here in the USA, so that it lasts longer and we don't need to buy so much all the time. Also, how exactly are we supposed to combat global warming WITHOUT using technology, for developing alternative (renewable) fuels, I'd like to know? skyfire: I don't think support is the proper word here; I believe in global warming, but I don't support it. See what I'm saying? Probably not.
|
|