Sure, messages from the inside are more convincing. But the evangelical community has a robust immune system from that. See, if you are trying to convince them, then you're not actually on the inside, you're just pretending to be. You're actually an agent of the Devil in disguise. You're not a "real" Christian. The gatekeeping is part of the rhetoric there. Tribalism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Still. Probably more convincing than the same message coming from devout Muslim scientists in California. Just...I would not expect this to win many hearts or minds. It's not really about the person delivering the message, it's about what the person listening wants to hear, and is brave enough to accept. Fear makes it hard to listen.
Are these scientists who are Christian, Christian scientists, or Christian Scientists?
It's actually easier for them to come to this conclusion: their hockey stick graph only has to go back 7000 years.
Yeah, yeah, I know.
There's already been significant inroads:
Being ok with environmental devastation is not part of the faith, it's just something people have been convinced of recently.
as a person of christian faith myself ive always been confused about the resistance to environmental ideas for two reasons:
1. its part of our religion that we are to be responsible stewards of nature.
2. our whole religion is based around the premise that creation was at one point perfect but is now ruined and broken due to our sin
you would think that christians would be all over environmentalism as a moral issue
Check the capitalization. (Or read the article.)
I would agree. The way I heard it best explained by people in the Evangelical environmental movement is, basically, "Your heavenly Father wants you to clean up after yourself." As somebody raised in the evangelical world (though not part of it now) it feels like the basic ideas should be pretty self-evident.
But I think the issue is more that you're battling not Christianity, per se, but the Ayn Rand Christianity that has become entrenched in certain parts of America in the last few decades.
Exactly right. There's nothing in scripture or tradition that requires obedience to the petroleum industry. However, politics trumps faith for a lot of people, and it's become clear that conservatism today is about nothing except trolling liberals. Remember the study that showed they were less likely to buy the same light bulb at the same price, if the label said "help save the Earth"?
A few months ago I discovered that my great-great-great uncle (who was pretty strongly religious and the son of the president of the Baptist Union) was also a supporter of women's education. He was the first non-conformist Senior Wrangler in Cambridge, which lead to the abolition of religious tests in the universities and the opening up of fellowships to students outside of the established church. He later started a successful campaign to allow women to take part in exams and complete university degrees. He also married an astronomer and supported her in writing at least one book on astronomy.
I think there are some areas of Christianity that allow quite a progressive stance on many issues, but people seem to take the party line as they won't support a party that supports abortion or some other policy. Once a policy like that is non-negotiable, it hardly matters how bad the rest of the policies are.
Maggie, there is also a form of conservative Christianity that has been gaining serious ground over the past decade or so, and it is the Militant Guerilla Christ Followers (patent pending). Rather than modeling themselves after the Jesus that says to give up all one's possessions and that the meek shall inherit the Earth, they prefer the vision of Christ as a militant rebel who fights the Powers that Be. It is not a peaceful nor accepting message, and I think it is fueling a large part of the divisive and obstructionist nature of the New GOP.
So in other words, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy?
In reality religion shouldn't have a political alignment. Democratic Senator Harry Reid is a Mormon and has stated that doing good for others and being a good steward of the environment are core reasons why he feels that his Mormonism compels him to being a Democrat.
What it comes down to are what issues one feels strongest about, and why. Unfortunately there are only two defined political choices, and even when one chooses a party because of a few issues, it's very possible that someone else in that party chose it for other issues, and the two basically have nothing in common politically.
I may strongly disagree with these scientists for a lot of their politics, but if they and I align on this particular issue then I will support their position on this issue.
which explains the failure of both sides of a two-party system. (,,#ﾟДﾟ):∴;'･,;`:ｺﾞﾙｧ!!
to the larger topic: I'm not a man of faith, but the wording (which could well be a bad translation, but there's no telling that to a King James adherent) of a passage like Genesis 1:26-30 hardly implies stewardship to my mind:
Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
this is clearly sovereignty, not stewardship; but I applaud the Christians with sense enough to loosen the interpretation. Perhaps less famous passages emphasize stewardship, but if a heathen like me knows this one, that points to it being a go-to soundbite for the flock, n'est ce pas?
There are other interpretations/translations of Genesis 1:26-30
American Standard Version
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food:
30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so.
26-28 God spoke: “Let us make human beings in our image, make them
reflecting our nature
So they can be responsible for the fish in the sea,
the birds in the air, the cattle,
And, yes, Earth itself,
and every animal that moves on the face of Earth.”
God created human beings;
he created them godlike,
Reflecting God’s nature.
He created them male and female.
God blessed them:
“Prosper! Reproduce! Fill Earth! Take charge!
Be responsible for fish in the sea and birds in the air,
for every living thing that moves on the face of Earth.”undefined> 29-30 Then God said, “I’ve given you
every sort of seed-bearing plant on Earth
And every kind of fruit-bearing tree,
given them to you for food.
To all animals and all birds,
everything that moves and breathes,
I give whatever grows out of the ground for food.”
And there it was.
No, but if you have a link that would be really good to see.
I wouldn't say we've done a great job of either of those two objectives
That's my favourite thing about religion - interpretations. They're just great..
Here you go. I think it was mentioned on BB as well, 1-2 months ago.
I know this appeals to your preconceived notions of those skeptical of CAGW, but the anti science fundamentalist is just another straw man in this debate.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.