Americans who don't believe in global warming

[zenshiite]

^No doubt, that's true. But the conspiracy theories about poisoning the water supplies for certain sectors of nations I think are far fetched. War is going to break out, and to be sure the 3rd world is going to bear the brunt of the violence. I'm not sure this is even avoidable, at this point, considering the kinds of drastic changes that scientists are saying absolutely need to happen for this to be headed off by 2050, which is kind of like the point of no return date. The US, China, India, etc aren't willing to do what it's going to take... and that means for war on the horizon within our lifetime.

It would take a miracle for industrial governments to really make the necessary changes to not only technologies but the very philosophy behind everything they are doing. I just don't see it happening.

[BillyK]

jesus christ, don't believe everything you see on tv. humans being responsible for global warming is a myth, just like zomg teh deadly swine flu is a myth.

[Steve James]

Well, one thing for sure, if there were fewer or no humans, there would still be plenty of bullshit.

[Chris Fleming]

"Actually, it was during the Bush years that there was a noticable shift in the evangelical right towards a significant care for environmental issues."

Maybe and then again maybe not. Bush and his policies were some of the most, if not actually THE most damaging toward the environment.

"My point, and this is one you're missing and one that you've clearly not researched too well, is that while this is about money and business it was forged in the ideological and philsophical mix of the Christian West more than anywhere else."

I get your point. And I also get that you are looking for this to be the case in order to strengthen your own religious convictions. I don't see this as a topic that I need to research, as I know where I stand on this issue and also what the Bible says about the earth. However, you just need to place the "Christian West" (whatever that is) at fault because you read it in a book. I see no need to spiritualize the issue of climate and global warming regardless of how much you do. You are researching from a philosophical point of view, which is incredibly subjective and strawman-ish whereas I am more practical--it is about money.

"Yes, non-Western countries are seeking their industrial revolution but they are also basing that on the Western model and following the ideologies that surfaced in the West."

Yeah that western model and western ideology is called CAPITALISM. It's about making money and gaining power. Not religion.

You act as if capitalism wasn't forged in the cultural and philosophical milieu of Christendom.

Listen, this isn't even a case of Christianity as a whole, really. It's more a case of Roman Catholicism and it's offshoots and the intellectual heritage they left behind. Which includes Christian philosophers that had a tendency to de-emphasize the sanctity of the world for the sake of elevating the Kingdom of God in Heaven; alongside those who gravitated away from a religious/metaphysical conception of the cosmos because of the way in which religion was lorded over people in the lands of Western Christendom. (I know, I know, you've got this very divergent point of view that defines "Christianity" as narrowly as you want to define it versus how it has manifested in a world that has accepted the belief in Christ as God-incarnate and savior and the way saiLike it or not, even the horrible aspects of Western society are legacies of Christianity in the Westd belief was administered in the world it held influence over... not at all the point, as you basically define any form of Christianity as inauthentic that doesn't fit your personal definition) and that includes reactionary anti-Christian philosophies. That includes the spread of capitalism, often under the banner of Christianity, to the shores of foreign lands and spawning the state of the modern world. It's not insignificant that an aspect of the Boxer Rebellion involved concerns for what the colonialists and their industrial technologies were doing to Chinese lands and how that was angering the gods. That's only one example of how industrialism, capitalism, and converting the "heathens" to Christianity went hand-in-hand. That program was repeated in the Middle East and Africa; as well as North and South America.

This also has absolutely nothing to do with shoring up my own religious convictions. I see Muslims repeating some of the same tropes that Christians have used to support unchecked industrialism, cruelty to animals and a wanton disregard for the natural order. All, also, in direct conflict with the teachings of the Qur'an and the sayings of Muhammad just as the religious justifications prominent, vocal, Christians used to sell the same things to the rest of the Christian world are in direct conflict with what the Bible says. The Bible, however, is not and never was the sole source of Christian thought... thought which, by your own admission in your attempts to de-authenticate anything that doesn't agree with your particular slant on Christianity, is sometimes at odds with the Bible. Personally I'd say there is a marked difference between the religion that Jesus actually taught and that which has historically been called 'Christianity" to the point that referring to the religion of Jesus as "Christianity" is wholly counterproductive to any kind of discussion of this topic. The fact is, the world we've been handed was founded on philosophies that are the direct result of the cultural and intellectual grounds that Christianity sowed. Whether they be religious justifications/rationalizations for the behavior that has gotten us here, or the reactionary anti-Christian philosophies. They are all products of the specific conditions of a world dominated first by Roman Catholic Christianity and later various Protestant/Evangelical denominations.

Secondly, how can you not spiritualize this problem? If it's about money, is not greed a spiritual disease? There's literally nothing in this world not connected to matters of the spirit, so if there is a problem it is without a doubt a spiritual problem. And if there is a spiritual problem it is a result of a failure of religious and spiritual leaders to address that problem. I'm not saying the problem doesn't exist elsewhere, but it's a problem that has arisen alongside the neo-colonialism and the spread of capitalism from Europe and America to the rest of the world. Furthermore, none of these philosophies would have spread in the way they did or led to the problems we now face as the Children of Adam if it were not for the specific failures of Christian leaders of the past and present. The fact is, there are now failings of Muslim leaders to address the spiritual malaise of the Muslim world as well... and I'm not saying they aren't. However, the topic at hand has much more to do with the intellectual and spiritual heritage of Christianity that spawned religious rationalizations for the exploitation of the natural order solely for human benefit and the philosophies and sciences that desacralized nature as a reaction to Church policies and leadership in the Medieval and Renaissance periods.

Sorry, I've been out for a while. As for this stuff:

"You act as if capitalism wasn't forged in the cultural and philosophical milieu of Christendom."

Yeah. Sure. Capitalism was founded by Christians. Sure. Right. All of those money makers weren't just trying to make more money with their goods and services they developed. And western society was the only place people have done this. Sure.

"It's more a case of Roman Catholicism and it's offshoots and the intellectual heritage they left behind."

Yeah. Sure. It was Roman Catholicism that developed the industrial revolution. Sure. But hey, I've read an Islamic author who says so!

" you basically define any form of Christianity as inauthentic that doesn't fit your personal definition"

And I know this will blow your mind, but unfortunately for many people, simply going to a place called a church does not a Christian make. Simple religious affiliation does not make someone a believer of Christ. Not my personal definition, but straight from the Bible. I get that this is a huge hang up for you, as for you all one has to do to be a Muslim is to call yourself a Muslim and practice as such. Same goes for Buddhism or whatever. Not so with Christianity. Many many nominal members they are, but when a person believes into Christ there is a real transaction, not a simple mental agreeing with doctrines, philosophies and practices. This is THE thing that separates believing in God from other "religions". Considering that this is the case, I don't really care what nominal or professing "Christians" do or don't do.

"Personally I'd say there is a marked difference between the religion that Jesus actually taught and that which has historically been called 'Christianity""

And for some reason you have a problem when I say this.

"Secondly, how can you not spiritualize this problem?"

Easy. I don't. You and the books you read seem to want to peg the problem on religion this or religion that, giving lip service that the Arab nations who gained wealth on oil do it too, but mainly you want to peg the problems of pollution and whatnot on "western" religion. A cop out and intellectually passive-aggressive.

But besides this, I am in the world and have to deal with it, but I am not of the world. It is not the job of Christianity or anything else to reform business or the world. I know this won't make sense, but just as the Lord did not come to be a social reformer, Christians should not be married to the world and worldly politics in attempts to "reform".

"If it's about money, is not greed a spiritual disease?" "And if there is a spiritual problem it is a result of a failure of religious and spiritual leaders to address that problem."

Money itself is a spiritual disease. There is no reform save for God that can cure it. This is in part why I say the above in that religion cannot be a world reformer.

"However, the topic at hand has much more to do with the intellectual and spiritual heritage of Christianity..."

According to who you (want) to read, I'm sure this is the case for you because you need it to be. Regardless of that, once again I remain practical: it's about capitalism. Or the lack thereof. I agree that it is greed as well, which is the real issue and transcends capitalism and statism. Look at other countries that don't fit your model. Namely, Russia. Or any other country that has adopted statism for a period of time. Their environment is trashed, their resources get used up, and economically and otherwise their people suffer for the attempt at socialism. Russia in particular is a great example as to the damage done by statism/socialism. Toxic waste is dumped straight into lakes and rivers because there is no other thought to do otherwise. All that is important to managers is to make their quota dictated from Moscow. But I'm sure you'll also blame Christians for that as well.

[zenshiite]

Man, Chris, you are one arrogant and ignorant SOB. Furthermore, you've ignored the whole plethora of points I've made. You can't even own up to the fact that the Christian-affiliated world has spawned the very mindset that has led to this ecological crisis. You can do all the semantical flip-flops you want to, but it doesn't change the way the dots connect. Now, if you want to take issue with the use of the term "Christian" to refer to those people who have claimed to be such... that's a whole 'nother ball 'o wax. But your own religious arrogance is appalling in that you obviously don't know the first thing about Islam or any other religion in relation to your own, nor the criterion for being judged a Muslim, Buddhist or whatever the hell else. In Islam believe is followed by action and indicated by action, and the action of a Muslim involves much more than merely praying 5 times a day and fasting 1 month of the year... it involves a whole range of ethics that involve one's relation to God, one's self, and the creation. The fact is, I use "Christian" as a means to refer to those who subscribe to the religious dogma of Christianity for lack of a better term. If you're using a stricter definition, that's great but it doesn't operate on the world stage. Nor does it answer to any of the ideas I've put forth... and more importantly, you haven't demonstrated the disconnect between Marxist socialism/communism and Chrsitianity except to say that Marx wasn't a Christian. Well, that's fine and dandy, but his ideology was formed in the cultural milieu of a world dominated by Christian theology, dogma and thought and was often formulated in direct opposition to the problems he saw arise due to Christian thought and dogma. The same is true of Renaissance scientists. Moreover, if religion weren't meant to be a world reformer you've got to question why the gospel should be spread as Christians are supposed to do... I mean, what's the sense in bringing the Good News if you're not expecting people to change because of it? I'm pretty sure God doesn't send anyone with any sort of message or mission in order NOT to work to change the world by changing people. "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" right? There's a failure on the part of religious institutions if they cannot help to cure these spiritual diseases that have caused the ecological crisis; and the reality is that the march against the sanctity of nature originated in a Christianity dominated Europe and America. Sometimes hand-in-hand with religious leaders preaching a gospel of domination over the creation. Many a Christian has argued the "we were given dominion over the earth and can do what we want with it" screed.

I'm not saying there are no Christians who have regarding nature sacred, in fact... there are a great many over the last 2000 years. Some very very prominent and have played a role in shaping certain elements of Christian theological thought. However, that's been lost and unfortunately Christians, often of the "Protestant" or "evangelical" stripe, have played a direct role in cultivating the thought process that it is man's God-given right to dominate the world the way we have. Again, this often came hand-in-hand with the tyrannical domination of non-Christian peoples. Especially indigenous peoples. Ill-concieved and directly in opposition with Biblical doctrine or not... for 2,000 years affiliation and church attendence has been the deciding factor in a person's "Christianity" for the vast majority of those who identify as Christians. Certainly just as the criterion on which I would judge the true character of a person as a Muslim(were I given to throwing around judgments about who is "true" or "untrue" in their faith, instead of regarding myself as quite a bit lower than the majority of Muslims I meet) is certainly stricter than a person who merely prays 5 times a day but pays lip service to the moral character and etiquette that is part and parcel of Islam... that is not the criterion by which you or even the majority of the world judges a person as a Muslim. In fact, the majority of the world seems to consider a person a Muslim who doesn't even practice Islam but whose parents were Muslims. The majority of the world considers one a Christian who identifies as Christian, even if they don't attend church or even if they don't meet up to the criterion that you and the Bible have set.

So I stick by my statement, the intellectual roots of the ecological crisis lay in a spiritual disease that was fostered and grown in cultural milieu of Christendom and it spread there-from. Would the Islamic world have spawned the same situation had it remained the cultural force it was in the Middle Ages into today? I don't know, I don't know if the industrial revolution would have taken the same shape. Would the same have been spawned from a culturally dominant China? Again, not sure, it's possible, but the industrial revolution would not likely have taken the same shape. It's worth pointing out that the same mentality that has resulted in ecological crisis has taken hold in the Middle East, China and India... and it often comes with abandoning traditional science, religion and philosophy. None of which would've likely happened without European colonialism.

[Chris Fleming]

"Man, Chris, you are one arrogant and ignorant SOB."

Name calling, are we now?

"Furthermore, you've ignored the whole plethora of points I've made."

Yes, I tend to ignore straw man arguments or the famous "I-post-therefore-it's-true" arguments.

"You can't even own up to the fact that the Christian-affiliated world has spawned the very mindset that has led to this ecological crisis."

That may have something to do with the fact that I think your position is ridiculous, a straw man argument, and doesn't stand up to academic rigor. There are lots of holes in your position. I notice that you haven't addressed them either.

"But your own religious arrogance is appalling in that you obviously don't know the first thing about Islam or any other religion in relation to your own, nor the criterion for being judged a Muslim, Buddhist or whatever the hell else."

I can totally understand that this is how I come across to you, and I actually don't blame you for seeing me as such. I have extensively studied other religions, even in their countries of origin first hand (especially when we are talking about Buddhism), and have come to many conclusions. What can I say? When your eyes get opened you see things differently.

"In Islam believe is followed by action and indicated by action, and the action of a Muslim involves much more than merely praying 5 times a day and fasting 1 month of the year... it involves a whole range of ethics that involve one's relation to God, one's self, and the creation."

Yes. You have described a religion, which is man's attempt to do certain religious practices, rituals, habits and ethics to improve the flesh and attempt to serve God, all WITHOUT God Himself.

"you haven't demonstrated the disconnect between Marxist socialism/communism and Chrsitianity"

I wasn't aware that I had to describe that there was a "connect" in the first place, let alone a disconnect.

"but his ideology was formed in the cultural milieu of a world dominated by Christian theology"

And again I totally understand that this is what your authors would like you to believe.

"if religion weren't meant to be a world reformer you've got to question why the gospel should be spread as Christians are supposed to do... I mean, what's the sense in bringing the Good News if you're not expecting people to change because of it"

I know it sounds weird to the religious mind, which always seeks to improve the flesh and everything else for that matter, but to what I see in the Bible, the Lord did not do a reforming work. He could have spoke out against many social ills such as slavery or war or oppressive and corrupt government, but He did not. The gospel leads you to a Person, not a reform movement or a religious work. In degraded Christianity there are all kinds of people who attempt at this, attempting to influence politics and whatnot, but I believe God is after something more. Namely, His interests, His expression, His kingdom. Not earthly politics and political movements.

"Many a Christian has argued the "we were given dominion over the earth and can do what we want with it" screed."

And i have already argued against this point with Biblical reference showing that abusing this paraphrased verse is wrong.

"were I given to throwing around judgments about who is "true" or "untrue" in their faith"

Yes, I get that you don't understand what I am talking about when I do "throw around judgments" about people who say they are Christians and yet prove by their own actions that they are not. This may be a result of your thinking that you understand the Christian faith well enough to believe you understand it. Like reading a book about a certain book, I can't help but think that you are simply believing what you want to believe about it based on that author's understanding, or in this case, lack thereof.

Quite simply, a Christian is someone who believes into Christ (John 3:16). This verse, and quite many others show an organic union with God. Someone who does not do this, does not confess Christ openly, can certain do all of the outward actions that you might expect a Christian to do. Doesn't matter. Yes, it is as simple as that. You either have God dwelling in you or do not. "He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17). It is not a matter of works and religious rituals and religious affiliation that makes someone a believer in Christ. That is man's way. Sad that people think this. And on the other hand, I've met people who say they are Christians and yet deny the deity of Christ. The Bible not only shows this clearly but also says that those who deny the Christ have the spirit of an anti-Christ. So that's why I say it is simple, because it is.

"So I stick by my statement"

And that's awesome. But amazingly "I'm-sticking-my-head-in-the-sand" kind of thinking. It just doesn't stand up to academic scrutiny when you consider that all of the environmental destruction occurs in eastern, western, capitalist, socialist, heathen, Christian, societies without exception, regardless of colonizations or the lack thereof. I don't say this arrogantly, but maybe you can read some other books and see if the same conclusion fleshes out. But hey, blaming the world's problems on Christians has been done before and will be done again. It's an easy thing to do. And, speaks volumes about many things...

[zenshiite]

Please, do demonstrate how environmental degradation happened to the degree that it has since the Industrial Revolution in the absence of colonialist projects which went hand in hand with the preaching of the Christian faith... often the Industrial meme supported by statements of Christians in support of said practices as "Christian."

Look, I get that you want to apply a rigorous standard to who is and is not a "Christian" and if that works in your personal universe, that's great. However, it does not and cannot work on the world stage where people are not given to disavow another his religion based on the rigors applied within the religion. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would say you're not a Christian based upon your contempt for the religious tradition established by the Apostles and embodied in... for instance, the Eastern Orthodox Church. Which is no different than me saying this or that leader of the past is not a true Muslim, or that Osama Bin Laden isn't a real Muslim. That's not something you're going to accept. In fact, if I demonstrated how this is the case I'm sure you'd insist that it is in fact not the case.

Furthermore, read the books I posted about. I'm certain I'm not doing them justice; but Seyyed Hossein Nasr isn't known for saying things in ignorance and his academic credentials are solid. Secondly, I'm not saying that Christianity as a religion is to blame so much as that the atmosphere of Christian religion fostered a mindset that allowed this to happen. And perhaps I didn't word it clear enough. Not trying to denigrate your religion, just pointing out how some choices were made early on as the faith spread through the Greco-Roman world about how to address that world and the consequences there-of. Most of the problem lies in philosophies and sciences formulated in direct opposition and reaction against a domineering Roman Church. However, early on Christianity or Christian leaders chose to address the Greco-Roman world and its perhaps excessive naturalism in such a way as to either ignore nature and it's role in spirituality or to deny it such a place and profanize nature. Modern theologians, especially Protestant theologians, have ceded to science the world of nature and secularized it and profanized it to a great degree. And not simply by ignoring it, either. However, there are Christian theologians that emphasize not merely the redemption of man as an isolated being but the entire creation via the incarnation of Christ. So it's not even that I'm trying to say "you need to change religions" in order to properly address this problem... just re-evaluate some of the religious thinking of the past that may have contributed to the problem. Which I addressed in specific reference to those evangelical Christians who decry global climate change as a fraud and then justify man's tyrannical domination of creation via Biblical reference. If you consult my initial post, you'd see that. But you wanted to turn this into a battle about whose religion is right because you've made your own judgments against me and my motivations. I'm not the one here trying to condemn people, just trying to get to the roots of the problem and I dare say it might be worthwhile to take a look at a mode of thinking that holds the body/flesh and creation in such contempt as that which you espouse.

[Chris Fleming]

"Please, do demonstrate how environmental degradation happened to the degree that it has since the Industrial Revolution in the absence of colonialist projects"

Perhaps I could pose the question to you this way: are you honestly trying to say there is a environmental disregarding world conspiracy among Christians to build up businesses, manufacturing and infrastructure? The coal mines and steel mills in the US were a result of colonialism? and the subsequent damage to the environment that results is a product of a religion? Sure. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you (it's in Brooklyn). The burden of academic proof is on you.

"I get that you want to apply a rigorous standard to who is and is not a "Christian""

What I find interesting about this is that you keep bringing it up. Exactly why, I'm not sure. You previously said that "my" definition has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but you are the one who keeps presencing it. I'll say it again, the Bible is clear on what makes a believer. I know it is hard to believe, but there is a lot more going on than a simple mental agreement with philosophical doctrines and ritualistic practices.

I know that this has been a topic of contention from you in the past but I'll state an example AGAIN: for instance, a pope (of which there is no position in the Bible) who ordered the slaughter and burning of a village of Christians who did not want to submit to his illegal authority is certainly in question as to if he was ever saved and actually believed in Christ. Such actions speak nothing of the organic union between God and man which occurs when a person believes. And has I've said MANY times before to you on THIS SUBJECT, the judgment is not up to me, but to God. He will judge.

"I'm sure there are plenty of people who would say you're not a Christian"

Then those plenty hypothetical people would be wrong. If "they" are going by a different standard, I would encourage "them" to look at the actual Bible itself which, as I've said MANY times, is very clear on the subject. Christians taking the Bible as the only source of divine inspiration is not a new thing. Someone coming up with some other kind of philosophical gymnastic means nothing.

"But you wanted to turn this into a battle about whose religion is right"

No I repeatedly tried to steer this topic away from religious hijacking and while others did stop going there, you most certainly and ardently needed to go there. I was focusing on capitalism, economics, etc and how these things lead to the damaging of the environment, hence global warming. It was YOU who kept bringing up how "Christians", as you lump everyone in western society into this label, are the ones responsible for having a world view which says it is ok to neglect the environment. And it is YOU who keep bringing up the "debate" on what the Bible says in regards to belief. Which I agree with you, is completely off the topic, but you can't help yourself.

"I'm not the one here trying to condemn people"

With non-condemners like you, who needs condemners!

"Which I addressed in specific reference to those evangelical Christians who decry global climate change as a fraud and then justify man's tyrannical domination of creation via Biblical reference."

And like I've said before in this thread, who gives a shit what evangelical Christians say about global climate change??? Big business and big lobbies such as the oil lobby are the ones who cry out against global warming and their voice (and their big money donations) are the ones that carry the policies. But sure, blame the Christians.

"I dare say it might be worthwhile to take a look at a mode of thinking that holds the body/flesh and creation in such contempt as that which you espouse."

[zenshiite]

The point is, the ambivalence(at best) of Christian leadership towards the environment is a major part of the problem that prevents change. Why, you might ask is this the case? Because big business and big lobbies aren't going to be shut out until the people take a stand against them, and there's a great many people who(whether they meet the criterion you say the Bible sets for who is and is not a believer or not) are at least sentimentally Christian and need for there to be a call placed upon their religious sentiment towards responsible environmental stewardship. No where have I said there's a "conspiracy" by Christians to destroy the environment. In fact, my initial statements were in regards to American Christians who actively disbelieve in the ecological crisis and man-caused global climate change and their hypocrisy. It seems to me we are on essentially the same page in regarding these people as hypocrites, however you chose to read into my posts a hostility to Christianity as a whole and obviously(despite what I've actually said) a notion that I believe there's some kind of Christian conspiracy to destroy the environment. Facts are facts, and it is the ambivalence(again, at best; hostility, at worst) of Christian leadership and theologians towards the order of nature that lead to those who regard themselves Christians to be apathetic in the face of ecological crisis. Which is why I even brought it up in this thread, it's specifically about Americans who don't believe in man-caused global climate change and unfortunately there's a very vocal group of evangelical Christians who encourage active disbelief in this crisis amongst their followers and those followers are quite a large number of people. True believers according to the definition you say the Bible requires likely are a very very small minority of people calling themselves Christians. Which leaves those you and the Bible and thus God would consider hypocrites to be the face of Christianity to the rest of the world, and unfortunately it's not a face that is being actively and loudly disputed. Just as al-Qa'ida and their ilk are seen as the face of Islam in the world and unfortunately the voices of the majority of Muslims who hold them to be quite anti-thetical to true Islam are not heard.

The United States is among the most religious countries in the world, at least in profession of faith and sentiment, and I stress... it's important to break people of their apathy and for those that attend churches and reckon themselves Christians, appealing to them via religious doctrine is a really important way to break through the apathy. So that's the point I've been trying to make, but you actually redirected the entire dialogue to strawman me and misrepresent my arguments. It just so happens that the political party that finds itself supporting the position that man-caused climate change isn't real and is in fact a hoax perpetrated by the scientific community and a conspiracy to tax people is the Republican party, a party closely aligned with the loudest Christian voices in the nation. People that are, for the worst, the face of Christianity in America... and they also espouse the belief that climate change isn't caused by man. And yes, this is due at least in part to a philosophical ambivalence towards the natural order fostered in Christian thought. There's no conspiracy required, it's a mode of thinking that arose as a direct response to Greco-Roman naturalism and how Christianity found itself needing to respond to that 2000 years ago. It's just shown it's flaws in the modern age as Christians have, for the most part, ceded to modern science the secularization and desacralization of the natural order. Throwing around accusations of "animism," as you have, of beliefs different than your own is a big part of the problem.

I keep bringing up the point about what you claim qualifies a believer in the Bible, because that's not how it works in the world. A person claims to be a Christian, does stuff to people or the world they live in that isn't pleasant and then more people also claiming to be Christians repeat those actions and they are going to be seen as the face of Christianity. Again, just as terrorists do things supposedly in the name of Islam and you see them as representative of Islam and what a Muslim is... despite my protestations to the contrary. In fact, we've gone that route quite a few times and it's a point you seem to always miss. You apply a certain standard that you claim is Biblical to parsing out who is and is not a true Christian both contemporarily and historically and then ask of me to use your standards in my figuring out who may or may not be a true Christian other than taking at face value the beliefs that people say they have; yet you would not do the same for my religion and instead take at face value that anyone who does the most horrific of acts who claims to be a Muslim is in fact a Muslim and moreover, representative of Islam or what is expected of the behavior of a Muslim. If you want your rigorous standards for Christians to be held to by people that don't share you faith, then you are intellectually and I would say morally bound to find out what rigorous qualifiers there are for figuring out the truth of another person's faith by their own standards.

I'm just going to drop you a couple examples of some of the problems today. You have to agree that CBN and Pat Robertson reaches a rather large number of people who call themselves Christians: http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/bibles ... earth.aspx There-in you have an admission of the hesitance of Christians to even delve into environmental activism, because of some insanely outrageous misrepresentations of the environmentalist community using the most extreme examples that people base their view of environmentalists off of. Not all environmentalists are pagans, most aren't, in fact. Which leads me to this evangelical site: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/fischer/070917 Those have got to be some of the worst strawman arguments I've ever seen.

Now, I will provide you a piece from 1967 by Lynn White, a Christian, on the "Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis." As you will see, if you choose to read it that is, he regards Islam to be a "Judeo-Christian heresy" and yet he's come to the same conclusions. That the modern ecological crisis, even 40 years ago, was the unique result of a particular point of view held in Western Christianity.

[klonk]

...American Christians who actively disbelieve in the ecological crisis and man-caused global climate change and their hypocrisy.

I'll have you know there are some fine upstanding Atheists, Unitarians and Episcopalians who think the global warming hysteria is hooey.

[zenshiite]

It's my understanding that Unitarians and Episcopalians consider themselves Christians, klonk. Nevertheless, all besides the point. My particular pontification was upon Christians that actively disbelieve in man-caused global climate change and the hypocrisy involved in the general apathy towards the environmental crisis from that camp. Nowhere did I say they were alone in their denial, just that that particular group irks me.

[klonk]

Well, if we are going to talk about groups that irk ME... Well, never mind.

[Chris Fleming]

"You apply a certain standard that you claim is Biblical to parsing out who is and is not a true Christian both contemporarily and historically and then ask of me to use your standards in my figuring out..."

I don't recall bringing up this point at all in this thread of my own prompting. It is you who just CAN'T stop bringing it up, and it was YOU who derided me for following the Bible regarding this issue, regardless of me not even making it a point of contention on this thread. I haven't required you to use any standard. I don't have a problem with correcting someone who is telling me what the Bible says, but once again, you keep bringing it up. A Muslim is ALWAYS going to have a *rather* hard time trying to tell a Christian what the main aspects of Christianity are, and I don't understand your need to keep trying, but hey, by all means, keep trying.

"yet you would not do the same for my religion"

I know full well that not all Muslims are terrorists and have never said so. C'mon. Get real. It seems like you want some kind of validation or something but you're not going to get that here.

"Christian leadership"

This is another term you keep throwing around. Quite simply, I don't recognize it. I understand that there are many Christian groups in the world who are vocal about this or that, but quite simply, from the Bible, there is no "Christian leadership". Again, something that may be hard for you to understand. There may be those who claim leadership, but again, God will judge. As for me, I follow what is in the Bible about it and it says that ALL believers are priests to God. So then, the only leader in "Christian leadership" is the Lord Jesus Christ. I don't really care what other groups do.


"unfortunately there's a very vocal group of evangelical Christians who encourage active disbelief"

And the fact that you actually keep making an argument that these Christian groups have any sway in the world policy is hilarious! Who gives a shit what evangelicals think? Are you really thinking that a "Christian worldview" (whatever that even is) is right now making the Chinese, who want their own industrial revolution, pollute their environment??? PLEAZE!!!

Big business money rules the day, not some Christian group. To think otherwise is naive, even for the ivory tower intellectuals who write books denouncing people who they want to denounce. Personally, I am happy if it is as you say, that at best, Christians are not actively involved in attempting to influence political change. They ought to keep far, far away out of the political scene. But then wait a minute, on one hand you say Christians are ambivalent and in the same breath you'll say that they are at fault for history's "ecological crisis". Which one is it???

"That the modern ecological crisis, even 40 years ago, was the unique result of a particular point of view held in Western Christianity."

And that's fine with me that you need it to be that way. Perhaps I can write a paper on how it was the fault of Muslim war and expansion that resulted in OPEC and the world's dependence on oil. The latter would make about as much sense as the former.

[PartridgeRun]

A good quote from a discussion board I like to frequent.

A temperature increase of 6^oC occurred at the Paleocene/Eocene boundary over a course of 20K years. This represents a mean increase of .0003^oC per year. This rate was sufficient to precipitate a 2nd order extinction episode (not one of the "big six" mass extinction events but still a significant dieoff).

Mean global temperature has risen 1^oC since 1880. This is a mean increase of .008^oC per year. Over an order of magnitude faster. If this trend continued linearly it would take 780 years for the temp to increase 6^oC. 26 times faster than at the end-Paleocene. Of course, the trend isn't likely to be linear; i.e., it's likely to accelerate. In fact, the IPCC "worst case" scenario is that temp will have increased 6.4^oC by 2100. As we know, the IPCC "worst case" seems to be milder than what is actually being observed. If a 6^oC temp increase over the course of 20K years resulted in a 2nd order extinction event, it's easy to see that AGW alone is sufficient to produce a 1st order dieoff - at least as bad as the end-Cretaceous event. And that doesn't even take into consideration habitat destruction & fragmentation, eutrophication & acidification of aquatic habitats, the introduction of invasive exotics, and other anthropogenic contributors to mass extinction.

Is the picture beginning to become clear?

Now go to a CREDIBLE, SCIENTIFIC source and educate yourself.
http://www.realclimate.org/

[TaoJoannes]

"how the polar ice sheets are retreating in the summer."
It's natural for there to be less ice in the summer than winter.

"Satellite images of polar ice sheets taken in July 2006 and July 2007 showing the retreating ice during the summer."
It's natural for there to be less ice in the summer than winter.

"...taken by spy satellites over the past decade, confirm that in recent years vast areas in high latitudes have lost their ice cover in summer months."
It's natural for there to be less ice in the summer than winter.

You seem to have missed the point.

All of the pictures are from the summer.

It is not natural for there to have been a thick mass of ice there in summer of 2001, and virtually nothing in summer 2007, or for the ice to be 100 feet from shore in summer 2006, but 5 miles from shore in summer 2007.

It's natural for ice to melt in summer, but what is happening is the cumulative effect of years of it melting a little more and freezing a little less, is the point they're trying to make.