What if climate change is real and human caused--what should Christians do about it?

[Jonahdog]

Not in this thread.

Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app

Because this thread is fantasy

[Interplanner]

Derf wrote:
But as Christians, we have an inside track with the designer of the earth. If He intended for it to handle 11 billion people, don't you think He would have designed it to handle 11 billion people? Or if not, perhaps He would have designed it not to reach 11 billion people.





No, the conclusions made here do not stand. The place has been seriously disrupted since the revolt of mankind, and the deluge (physically and geologically more by the deluge than the other). It groans until the coming new heavens and new earth, Romans 8:

The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the One who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time...

To believe that that whole place is in a state of disruption and disarray is one of the basic Christian beliefs addressed in Dr. Schaeffer's HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT. By contrast, the atheist and uniformitarian belief is that it is arriving at something of evolutionary perfection, especially if we can just put massive global centralized government in charge, like the Third Reich intended. The US Constitution would be beheaded, and all actions or values would be assessed in terms of the 'environment.' Thus the supposed 'crisis' of climate change, which is as elusive in definition as possible, and has been rewritten 3 times so far.

[Derf]

Because this thread is fantasy

Agreed, and I appreciate you admitting it! That's why the title starts with "What if"! But I'm willing to go beyond the fantasy and see what we might do if climate change were not a fantasy.

If you want to put forward a Christian perspective on our responsibilities regarding alleged climate change, please do so. But research them first. I know you like to research such things.

[Derf]

Derf wrote:
But as Christians, we have an inside track with the designer of the earth. If He intended for it to handle 11 billion people, don't you think He would have designed it to handle 11 billion people? Or if not, perhaps He would have designed it not to reach 11 billion people.





No, the conclusions made here do not stand. The place has been seriously disrupted since the revolt of mankind, and the deluge (physically and geologically more by the deluge than the other). It groans until the coming new heavens and new earth, Romans 8:

The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the One who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time...

To believe that that whole place is in a state of disruption and disarray is one of the basic Christian beliefs addressed in Dr. Schaeffer's HE IS THERE AND HE IS NOT SILENT. By contrast, the atheist and uniformitarian belief is that it is arriving at something of evolutionary perfection, especially if we can just put massive global centralized government in charge, like the Third Reich intended. The US Constitution would be beheaded, and all actions or values would be assessed in terms of the 'environment.' Thus the supposed 'crisis' of climate change, which is as elusive in definition as possible, and has been rewritten 3 times so far.

Thanks for that input, IP. I just picked that book off the shelf to read it a couple nights ago. (As usual, I got interrupted before I got very far into it. ) I agree with you that the world is in a state of disruption and disarray, but I disagree with you that we should just let it be that way.

God gave man a job when he left the garden--to take a place that was in a state of disarray and make it better and more productive.

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; [Gen 3:18 KJV]
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. [Gen 3:23 KJV]

Schaeffer is not one to shy away from attempts to make things more beautiful, and even to deal with the environment. From his book "Pollution and the Death of Man":

Why has strip mining usually turned the area where it has been used into desert? …What has brought about the ugly destruction of the environment? There is one reason: man’s greed. If the strip miners would take bulldozers and push back the topsoil, rip out the coal, then replace the topsoil, ten years after the coal was removed there would be a green field, and in fifty years a forest. But as it has usually been practiced, for an added profit above what is reasonable in regard to nature, man turns these areas into deserts and then cries out that the topsoil is gone, grass will not grow, and there is no way to grow trees for hundreds of years! It is always true that if you treat the land properly, you have to make two choices. The first is in the area of economics. It costs more money, at least at first, to treat the land well. For example, in the case of the school I have mentioned [Schaeffer had previously mentioned an ugly Christian school building that had no trees around it], all they had to do to improve the place was to plant trees to shield the building they built. But it costs money to plant trees, and somebody decided that instead of planting trees they would prefer to do something else with the money. Of course, the school needs money for its important work; but there is a time when planting trees is an important work. The second choice that is involved is that it usually takes longer to treat the land properly. These are the two factors that lead to the destruction of our environment: money and time — or to say it another way, greed and haste. The question is, or seems to be, are we going to have an immediate profit and an immediate saving of time, or are we going to do what we really should do as God’s children?

While Schaeffer was dealing with strip mining in that section, the same principles (as laid out in the latter two paragraphs) can and should apply to this discussion.

So, in light of the Schaeffer example, one biblical principle that can be brought to bear is DISTRIBUTED PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS that never expire.

"???????", you may think. But think more deeply. In Schaeffer's example, the problem exhibited is that a company can come in and destroy a piece of land, then move on to another. But if they had permanent rights to that land and no other (thus the "distributed" part), they could realize the available wealth of their land, but they would then need to do something else with it, and wouldn't want to leave it in a state of disarray.

This biblical principle is found in the Mosaic law where property rights remain in the family FOREVER. They can lease it out to others, but it reverts back to them at Jubilee. And their descendants will need to survive off the land thereafter.

Not all land was distributed in such a way--city dwellers did not own their property forever.

So are there principles like this that can apply to climate change scenarios?

Are we not "the sons of God"? Do you think the creation will be immediately fixed when we are revealed? What of Eze 39:9,11 that tells us of efforts to clean up after war that last for months and years?

Is it even possible, as many on TOL have suggested, that the prophecies of future destruction might be avoided if we start doing now what needs to be done, rather than waiting until more stuff is destroyed?

Is it possible, even, that "the whole creation groans" because man is not currently obeying God's commands, some of which include tending the environment, and that it will cease when man finally does God's will on earth like is already being done in heaven?

[Derf]

Move to warmer areas not to cooler areas.

LA

Aren't we to "fill" the earth? So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth." [Gen 9:1 NKJV]

And didn't God work against those that decided to stay in the comfortable location and climate (Babel)?

But, on the other hand, if the earth warms automatically as the population rises, you don't have to move to a warmer climate--the warmer climate comes to you!

[Derf]

Ahhr but Jesus can do anything and will supernaturally restore the Earth. Just think about the miracles of calming the storm, creating food, healing people, etc. It will be simple to restore the atmosphere to whatever it 'should' be.

Yes, He can. But will He?

Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. [Gen 2:15 NKJV]

God didn't need Adam to tend and keep the garden, since He could just supernaturally prune and rake and whatever else Adam was supposed to do.

Neither does God need any help to judge, but Paul said we will judge the world and angels. 1Co 6:2-3

Neither did Jesus need 12 legions of angels to rescue Him from the cross (Mat 26:53). But they were there, ready to do so.

Neither does He need 144,000...

Why? Why would God ever want men or angels to do what He could do in an instant, by His mere word?

[Lazy afternoon]

Aren't we to "fill" the earth? So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth." [Gen 9:1 NKJV]

And didn't God work against those that decided to stay in the comfortable location and climate (Babel)?

But, on the other hand, if the earth warms automatically as the population rises, you don't have to move to a warmer climate--the warmer climate comes to you!

The latest science is that the earth is beginning its cooling phase.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCUrljERHcA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH4xHf4Hb8M&t=137s

LA

[Derf]

What's wrong with 11 billion people?

Let's say we spread all 11 billion people out evenly across the surface of the earth. Each person would get approximately 3.35 acres of land. If you subtract out the uninhabitable land, it's more like 1.5 acres per person. Is that enough for each person to feed themselves? I don't know--it might be, as long as it isn't mostly concrete.

BUT, the good news is that global warming, if that is what's happening, is opening up new areas for human habitation, like regions further north. The bad news is that the ocean levels will be rising some, too. These things are tradeoffs, but it seems like it may be good tradeoffs. I.e., we may get more land up north than we lose on islands and coastal areas. And maybe having a large city, like Miami or LA, fall into or get swallowed by oceans every now and then is a good thing, too.

The jury is still out on whether we will be able to reclaim more desert land or we lose more land to deserts.

You mentioned that regulations are the reason you don't want to talk about polar bears and plastic bags. But saying we can't talk about polar bears and plastic bags is a regulation you want to impose. Why do you get to impose regulations, but don't want anyone to impose them on you?

I'll answer for you, because I feel the same way--we want the benefits of society without the negatives. We all do. The more we have of our own, however, the less we think we need from others. This is the basic political divide in the US (and other places, too). And the more we earn, the more we like to keep the fruit of our labors. More tradeoffs.

Regulations are a necessary part of living with other people, period. So if you want to do away with regulations, then you will have to do away with some people. Reaching 11 billion in population will definitely NOT decrease the amount of needed regulation...

UNLESS, everybody exercises some amazing self-control.

So, there's another biblical principle for handling climate change--self control. This would be something similar to the idea I broached with @Interplanner about cleaning up after one's self better--trying not to mess up other people's stuff.

[The Barbarian]

Stripe has a basic misunderstanding of entropy.

Why would that be different than everything else? Stipe is an outpatient at the Kowloon Clinic for the Completely Wrong.

[genuineoriginal]

If the bible gives wisdom for all occasions, then it should be able to handle this:

Let's say, for argument's sake, that Global Climate change is a fact, and that it is caused by humans.

Okay.

What then should we as Christians do about it? I'll suggest up front that while some of the secular proposals are feasible, and some not so much, there are consequences that also demand biblical consideration.

Here's a for-instance:
Let's say that one of the problems causing warming is cooking/warming fires (this can be applied to more or less modern cooking and heating devices), and the carbon dioxide and pollution both create conditions that contribute in some way to the warming, but they are necessary for people to survive, supposedly. Thus, if we outlaw or severely limit such fires, we run the risk of starving some people, or exposing them to cold, or causing them to to have to drink unsanitary water, or whatever. On the other hand, if we do nothing, some people are likely to lose their homes or their lives because of the effects of global warming/climate change. Thus we face the problem of not loving our neighbor in either case.

Here is a Biblical for-instance:
Let's say that one of the problems causing catastrophic climate change is God wrath against mankind's sin. If we outlaw or severely limit such sin, we run the risk of upsetting a lot of people who want to continue sinning, but we fulfill loving our neighbor by trying to save them from their sins. On the other hand, if we do nothing, God's wrath will only increase and many people will be destroyed and He will hold their sin against us because we didn't try to save them from their sins. The correct response should be obvious.

I think there is definitely a warming trend, but I don't know whether it is human-caused or not, and I don't know if it's a bad thing or not. Participants of the thread should feel free to explore the different sides.

Since we coming out of an ice age, it would make sense to think there is a warming trend.
We haven't reached climate optimum yet, so a warming trend is a good thing.

[The Barbarian]

Okay.
Since we coming out of an ice age,

We is?

it would make sense to think there is a warming trend.

The ice age ended thousands of years ago, but the warming trend goes back to the beginning of the industrial revolution.

We haven't reached climate optimum yet

How do stronger hurricanes, a drier climate in the American West, and depleted water supplies mean we're moving toward an optimum?

so a warming trend is a good thing.

Check out what's happened to insurance rates for homes on the Gulf Coast.

[patrick jane]

Check out what's happened to insurance rates for homes on the Gulf Coast.

That's what they get for living on the edge of the ocean. Natives warned us about that.

[genuineoriginal]

The ice age ended thousands of years ago, but the warming trend goes back to the beginning of the industrial revolution.

The ice age we are coming out of is the Little Ice Age that followed the Medieval Warm Period.

How do stronger hurricanes, a drier climate in the American West, and depleted water supplies mean we're moving toward an optimum?

They don't, neither do hurricanes and overuse of potable water supplies indicate that there is anthropogenic global warming.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The ice age ended thousands of years ago, but the warming trend goes back to the beginning of the industrial revolution.

The ice age we are coming out of is the Little Ice Age that followed the Medieval Warm Period.

Funny you should mention that...

The Little Ice Age; was it big enough to be global?
The global implications of the Little Ice Age are still debatable, but it is rather safe to say that for a variety of reasons, the world was cooler for a period of time. And although the Little Ice Age devastated those who were sustaining themselves at a latitude and altitude extreme, it is important to keep in mind that this 'ice age' was a tiny blip in the climatic fluctuations of earth. By far, other climatic fluctuations in even the Holocene, like Younger Drias which last over 800 years, have been far more intense and last much longer. Determining the reasons for the Little Ice Age is quite a challenge.
http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Weat...asitbigen.html


Barbarian asks:
How do stronger hurricanes, a drier climate in the American West, and depleted water supplies mean we're moving toward an optimum?

They don't,

Right.

neither do hurricanes and overuse of potable water supplies indicate that there is anthropogenic global warming.

Stronger hurricanes are a prediction of global warming. And the drier conditions in the west are also.

[Angel4Truth]