The green gospel: More vs. better

[HT Q Ideas]

"We are gradually undoing the stability that God built into our climate system."

If this is true, then what we are saying is that 1. God is a poor designer and 2. that God lied about the durability of the earth, a promise given from Genesis to Revelation.

And the supposed scientific evidence cited is not nearly as solid or "settled" as Bill wants to assert. Science is simply not done by consensus. There are still large gaps in and questions about the data.

The argument from the OT is based on a patently false assumption that mankind is merely a virus or scourge on the environmental. Merely using the environmental for our ends does not constitute raping the environment. It seems like Bill's hermaneutic is based on his narrow pursuit of saving mother nature.

Similarly Bill's argument form the NT appears to amount to nothing more than equating the gospel with man-made global warming hysteria and then co-opting the good Samaritan parable to somehow prop up this new Franken-gospel.

If we want to talk about injustice, we need to expose Bill's solution what it really is. Its the forcing everyone to worship this new environmental religion.

Sorry, but reality here is that the notion that men are able to and indeed are (in a causal sense) destroying the world that God made is still an unsubstantiated myth. A fad. A religion.

Share/Bookmark

Leave a Reply