Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Valmy]

Pretty sure John was saying that Jesus was God here.

Sure. I and the father are one. But not in the literal sense.

[Valmy]

But I naturally think that my views are correct and are true Christianity and that they are wrong. Because that is what being a Christian is all about.

What do two Protestants do when they meet?  They disagree and start their own churches.   

[Razgovory]

Wide spread Biblical literalism is a fairly new phenomenon.

It is due to science and the enlightenment actually. They think you can apply the Bible like you can apply Newtons Laws.

It is sadly championed by ignorant rubes.  Some of those rubes are even Christians.

[Berkut]

I am fine with Valmy feeling that he is a Christian under whatever terms he likes - but noting that he falls well outside the typical definition is hardly unreasonable.

That is only because you are defining a Christian as one who gives the Bible a literal interpretation.  Valmy says he does not do so.  I don't think he is the only Christian who takes that view.  Indeed it is probably only the Protetestant fundy North American Christians who take the literalist view in any great numbers.

There is a wide range though in "taking it literally".

I went to a Lutheran school, for example. They were about as non-fundy as Christians come, and did not take the bible literally at all. I spent countless hours in bible study on what was and was not literal, and what the message was of various non-literal stories.

But they most certainly believed, and taught, that Jesus Christ was an actually person who actually existed and was actually born of a virgin and actually was the son of god and actually was executed and actually did in fact rise from the dead.

They are not "fundies" by any means, and I suspect represent the vast majority of Christian (including Catholic) thought on what actually happened in regards to Christ.

I think it is a small minority of people who call themselves Christians who would claim that Christ did not actually rise from the dead.

So no, I am not defining Christians as only those who take the bible literally. I would define the term "Christian" to refer to people who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. I don't think that is really a controversial definition.

Sure, but the point you made earlier was that it was a cop out for Christianity to (I think you put it "back out of material science" or something like that) and you used the early earthers as an example of more honest Christians.  In fact the Vatican, for one, does not back away from the study of science and your assertion that early earthers are the honest ones really only applies the literal interpretation of the Bible is the only legitimate interpretation.

Ahhh, ok, I see what you mean.

You are taking me too literally - my comment was not meant that seriously, or rather my comment seemed like I thought it was more meaningful than I really meant it. Or something like that.

In any case, I am trying to say that YECs are, in some ways, more consistent in that they simply take what the bible says at face value, and damn the consequences. I am not saying that is a good thing, or that they are "better" Christians, just more of a interesting sort of note on various religious groupings of belief.

I had a fellow officials who was a YEC. We had some interesting discussions on long trips to St. Lawrence.

[Berkut]

I would define the term "Christian" to refer to people who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. I don't think that is really a controversial definition.

*ahem* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

Unitarianism is a Christian theological movement named for the affirmation that God is one entity, in direct contrast to Trinitarianism, which defines God as three persons in one being. Unitarians maintain that Jesus of Nazareth is in some sense the "son" of God (as all humans are children of the Creator), but that he is not the one God himself. They may believe that he was inspired by God in his moral teachings and can be considered a savior, but all Unitarians perceive Christ as human rather than divine.

Hence I call myself a Unitarian, which is a kind of Christian.

Fair enough.

[Ed Anger]

Ugh, Unitarians.

[mongers]

Guys, why is every other thread on the forum turning in to 'discussion' focused around religion.   

[Berkut]

Wide spread Biblical literalism is a fairly new phenomenon.

It is due to science and the enlightenment actually. They think you can apply the Bible like you can apply Newtons Laws.

OK, lets be clear here though.

Biblical literalism is NOT talking about people who believe that Christ really existed, really was divine, really did rise from the dead, and all this is supernatural.

The set of Christians are not "People who think like Valmy" and "Bible literalists".

Really, bring up biblical literalists is pretty much a red herring in regards to the discussion me and Valmy are having about his rather peculiar (compared to mainstream Christianity) religious beliefs.

[Razgovory]

Are you talking to me?   I would say that in the time of St. Augustine they had no more idea how the word formed then they did 700 years prior.  People really didn't have a good idea how old the Earth was until the 18th century.

[Valmy]

Ugh, Unitarians.

Hey! Some of our most mediocre one term Presidents have been Unitarians!

[PDH]

Actually, I would say that much of the Biblical literalism dates back (at least) to the heresies of the High Middle Ages/Late Middle Ages.  The Protestant Reformation underlined much of the earlier heresies and gave it the stamp of widespread publishing, but the "back to the Bible" movement has been a force for quite a bit longer than the what was stated above.

[Valmy]

Actually, I would say that much of the Biblical literalism dates back (at least) to the heresies of the High Middle Ages/Late Middle Ages.  The Protestant Reformation underlined much of the earlier heresies and gave it the stamp of widespread publishing, but the "back to the Bible" movement has been a force for quite a bit longer than the what was stated above.

I get what you are saying but I still do not think it is the same thing. After all the 'back to the bible' movement also created my sorta Christians as well.

[Liep]

Guys, why is every other thread on the forum turning in to 'discussion' focused around religion.   

Because the threat of Viking intervention is no more.

[mongers]

Guys, why is every other thread on the forum turning in to 'discussion' focused around religion.   

Because the threat of Viking intervention is no more.

Now I really do miss him. 

[HisMajestyBOB]

I thought this was a good article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Even ExxonMobil says climate change is real. So why won't the GOP?
To understand how dangerously extreme the Republican Party has become on climate change, compare its stance to that of ExxonMobil.

No one would confuse the oil and gas giant with the Sierra Club. But if you visit Exxon's website , you will find that the company believes climate change is real, that governments should take action to combat it and that the most sensible action would be a revenue-neutral tax on carbon — in other words, a tax on oil, gas and coal, with the proceeds returned to taxpayers for them to spend as they choose.
Fred Hiatt is the editorial page editor of The Post. He writes editorials for the newspaper and a biweekly column that appears on Mondays. He also contributes to the PostPartisan blog. View Archive

With no government action, Exxon experts told us during a visit to The Post last week, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic (my word, not theirs) 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible.

"A properly designed carbon tax can be predictable, transparent, and comparatively simple to understand and implement," Exxon says in a position paper titled "Engaging on climate change."

None of this is radical. Officials negotiating a climate agreement right now in Paris would take it as self-evident. Republican leaders in the 1980s and 1990s would have raised no objection.
Play Video2:13
The Paris climate talks, explained
Understand decades of climate change negotiations and what's at stake in Paris in two minutes. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

But to today's Republicans, ExxonMobil's moderate, self-evident views are akin to heresy. Donald Trump, the leading GOP presidential candidate, says, "I don't believe in climate change." Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) says, "Climate change is not science, it's religion." Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) at the moment seems to acknowledge that climate change might be real but opposes any action to deal with it.

Well, you may say, Trump revels in his stupidities, and most of the presidential candidates are appealing to the rightmost wing of their primary electorate at the moment. What about the grownups in the party, such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.)?

Glad you asked.

In an op-ed for The Post published as President Obama traveled to Paris for the opening of the climate talks, McConnell slammed Obama's policy for harming the middle class without measurably affecting climate change.

Does that mean, I asked the majority leader's press secretary, that he believes climate change is real, and are there policies he would favor to mitigate the risk?

The spokesman answered: "While the Leader has spoken often on energy and the President's policies, I don't believe he'll have anything new today. And as to the President's policies, the President says he's for 'all of the above.' He got that line from us. But as to his climate proposal and the Paris proposals, I think he's spoken clearly on that in his op-ed. I hope that helps."

I tried once more: "So as to whether he believes climate change is real, or would favor any policies to mitigate it, I should just say, declined to answer?"

I didn't hear back.

A genuine conservative, as Ronald Reagan's secretary of state George P. Shultz has written, would acknowledge uncertainties in climate science but look for rational, market-based policies to lessen the risk without slowing economic growth. A revenue-neutral carbon tax, as in a bill Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has introduced, fits the description precisely.

What then explains the know-nothingism of today's Republicans? Some of them see scientists as part of a left-wing cabal; many of them doubt government's ability to do anything, let alone something as big as redirecting the economy's energy use. Almost all of them, along with quite a few Democrats, would rather not tell voters that energy prices need to rise for the sake of the environment.

Their donors in the oil and gas industry encourage their prejudices. Three years ago, Grover Norquist, the Republicans' anti-tax enforcer, said that a carbon tax wouldn't violate his no-tax-increase pledge if the proceeds were returned by lowering the income tax, though he made clear he didn't like the idea.

The next morning, the lobbying arm of the oil and gas industry swung into action. "Grover, just butch it up and oppose this lousy idea directly," the American Energy Alliance said. "This word-smithing is giving us all headaches."

For most of us, the reaction to this would have been: Butch it up? But Norquist got the message and within hours issued a clarification: Only a constitutional amendment banning the income tax could justify a carbon tax.

So the industry deserves its share of blame, and that includes ExxonMobil, which hardly trumpets its views on the advantages of a carbon tax. (Its most alarming slide, on the 5-degree temperature rise, can't be found on its public site.)

But blaming it all on Big Oil lets the politicians off too easily. Yes, McConnell represents a coal state, and, yes, he wants to preserve his Senate majority. If those considerations are more important to him than saving the planet, let him say so to our children and grandchildren. Let's not blame the oil companies for the pusillanimity of people who are supposed to lead.

Good question: why won't they?