- I’m accused of inconsistency. I am not trying to be consistent. I’m trying to be honest. I question the assumption that we can even have a systematic theological comprehension of everything.
- I’m accused of not telling people what to believe. I’m not trying to tell people what to believe. I am trying to respect each person’s responsibility for their own faith.
- I’m accused of being a universalist. I know we are all connected. That we are all one. I’m trying to understand this and articulate it theologically.
- I’m accused of being unorthodox. I’m not trying to be orthodox. I want to know the truth for myself for which I can live and die.
- I’m accused of not being missional. In fact, I think I am more missional! Believing we are all one, I am trying to find an articulation of this unity that bridges the illusory gaps between me and everyone else, including non-believers.
- I’m accused of being too sensitive when people leave our church. I refuse to pretend I’m not hurt. And I refuse to gloss painful experiences over with syrupy spiritualized attempts at denial.
- I’m accused of being an enemy of the church. I love the church more passionately than anyone I know. So in regards the church, I won’t turn a blind eye.
- I’m accused of being confused. I admit I don’t understand. Yet. But I’m desperately trying. I am seeking, and in seeking I will find.
- I’m accused of being a bad pastor. Actually, I believe most pastors struggle as I do. I just happen to be open about it. But this accusation is my kryptonite: it has the power to permeate my mind and disable me.
- I’m accused of pastoring a bad church. These are the most beautiful people in the world. We suffer together, sharing one another’s burdens unashamed. Like me, they are more open than most about their struggles.
An Apology to My Accusers
Leave a Reply
Trackback URL
http://www.nakedpastor.com/archives/4388/trackback
-
artist. cartoonist. teacher.
-
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
fishon: if you would be so kind as to point out a cartoon that you find separatist, i’d appreciate it. plus i might get a chance to explain.
“I have explained it several times before. Check the archives.” -fishon
and i’ve read all of them and left with the same question… none are statisfactory nor articulated fully.
NathanL said “Bob, I know I’ll probably be chastised for this, but it’s just too easy.
You define the ‘fundamentalist mentality’ as being prone to saying “you are wrong”.
Now, I HOPE you’re going to be logically consistent and NOT say that those who host this mentality are ‘wrong’, lest you be damned by the same sloppy definition?”
I don’t want to chastise anyone since we are hopefully in a dialog, not a punishment exchange. There are other views of reality that don’t depend on a right/wrong duality. One of the characteristics of many forms of fundamentalism is being “right.” And some people are unable to conceptualize a pluralistic reality and for those people fundamentalism is a useful world view.
NathanL said – Bob, I know I’ll probably be chastised for this, but it’s just too easy.
You define the ‘fundamentalist mentality’ as being prone to saying “you are wrong”.
Now, I HOPE you’re going to be logically consistent and NOT say that those who host this mentality are ‘wrong’, lest you be damned by the same sloppy definition?
NathanL, read this again – “Victor, when I use the term, it has to do with “attitude”. From my perspective, most fundamentalists display a particular “You are wrong” attitude.”
No, it was a nice try, but I am not saying fishon is “wrong” in his approach to those he disagrees with. He may be 100% right in all his beliefs (though he has no way of knowing that. If he is right, it’s due to a lucky guess). I don’t know and don’t really care. I don’t think I have ever told fishon that he was wrong. I just don’t like him because of his attitude towards those whom he disagrees with. So, my “sloppy” definition is mine. It’s basically an opinion, an observation of the attitude of people who BELIEVE they are right, but think they KNOW they are right.
Does that make sense?
preacherlady said, on December 20th, 2009 at 1:37 am
fishon…according to the Mirriam-Webster online dictionary, the first meaning of the word apology is : a formal justification…an excuse, a defense….most of us understood that this was what David meant.
———-So I didn’t understand it that way. Something wrong with that?
Now, have you ever considered the fact that David might just be on a part of the path that you havn’t encountered yet?
———-No. Have you considered that I may have already had that encounter and come out the other end? A 33 yr. encounter. Somewhat presumptious of you, Alice.
A part of the path that remains hidden until you find yourself on it? Before you sputter and say “BUT I WOULD NEVER…” remember Peter…he had the whole ball of wax together…and then…just wondering
———-Never even entered my mind to say “BUT I WOULD NEVER.”
And again, maybe, just maybe I have walked that path and have found my way!
I wonder if there is anyone reading this who would have the arrogance to say I
have not already walked that walk?
fishon
Luke said, on December 20th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
“I have explained it several times before. Check the archives.” -fishon
and i’ve read all of them and left with the same question… none are statisfactory nor articulated fully.
—————Sorry my articulation is not to your standards.
I guess you are left in the dark.
fishon
nakedpastor said, on December 20th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
fishon: if you would be so kind as to point out a cartoon that you find separatist, i’d appreciate it. plus i might get a chance to explain.
———-Why would I waste time? You will defend to the end. Be honest, what I consider a separatist cartoon you will find….
Oh heck, why not! Take your COPENHAGEN toon. You know full well that there is a huge difference of opinion in the Christian community on the gorbal warming position, and yet you reference: “That way we won’t kill our grandchildren, just our great, great grandchildren.” Tell me, David, what were you trying to say? Who was the toon pointed at? Are you going to tell me that you had no thought of folks like me who think gorbal warming [abnormal] is bunk, when you did it and wrote what you wrote? It is obvious you were dinging someone.
And I make a little comment:::fishon said, on December 19th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
gorbal warming sure has been hot for algor’s bank roll.———-and the next thing you know, Lydia accuses me of:::Anyone who would comment with a phrase such as gorbal warming must be an extremely special human being. What is here is here for the special ones and to hell with those who follow…..
You, David, used your toon to say to those who don’t think as you do, well, it will it will be our great, great, grandchildren we kill, and Lydia says we say, “…to hell with those who follow….”
fishon
RICHARD HARTY SAID: “I don’t want to chastise anyone since we are hopefully in a dialog, not a punishment exchange. There are other views of reality that don’t depend on a right/wrong duality. One of the characteristics of many forms of fundamentalism is being “right.” And some people are unable to conceptualize a pluralistic reality and for those people fundamentalism is a useful world view.”
– Indeed. My point would be that these other views of reality are hopeless (quite literally), namely in their double standards. You’re saying the same thing, just coating it differently. In order to postulate these other ‘views’ of reality as decent or worthy of being held up, you have to posit their ‘rightness’, to the detriment of a plethora of other views (in this case, so-called ‘fundamentalisms’). To put it simply, one can’t criticise someone else for saying that something’s/someone’s wrong without falling into the same error. To use your phrasing, you can’t suggest other views beside the “right/wrong duality” without suggesting that these other views are “right”, and the duality is “wrong”. Same problem, re-articulated.
I’m also HIGHLY suspicious of ANYONE using the term ‘fundamentalist’, almost a priori. The term has a specific historical and theological meaning.
fishon: thanks for your reply and bringing up the Copenhagen cartoon. Many years ago I was on a work crew in Alabama one hot summers day. We stopped for lunch and sat around eating our sandwiches and drinking ice tea in the shade of a tree. We got onto the subject of the men landing on the moon and walking on it. Most the men there agreed that the whole thing was a hoax, a big government cover-up. And they were vehemently angry about it. I knew right then that there was no point in arguing about something that can’t be proven. Especially when emotions are involved.
So I can only tell you what motivated me to draw the cartoon. I read the excellent novel “The Road”. That book, more than any other attempt by scientists or environmentalists, etc., convinced me that I needed to change my behavior in relationship to the environment. Since then, I’ve radically decreased my carbon footprint. I’m still contributing carbon, though. So basically I’ve only delayed what I think is inevitable. We are using up the earth’s non-renewable resources. The population is growing. That is just two facts that is enough to convince me that without a radical reversal of our disregard for the environment, that eventually someone’s going to pay dearly.
BOB SAID: “NathanL, read this again – “Victor, when I use the term, it has to do with “attitude”. From my perspective, most fundamentalists display a particular “You are wrong” attitude.”
No, it was a nice try, but I am not saying fishon is “wrong” in his approach to those he disagrees with. He may be 100% right in all his beliefs (though he has no way of knowing that. If he is right, it’s due to a lucky guess). I don’t know and don’t really care. I don’t think I have ever told fishon that he was wrong. I just don’t like him because of his attitude towards those whom he disagrees with. So, my “sloppy” definition is mine. It’s basically an opinion, an observation of the attitude of people who BELIEVE they are right, but think they KNOW they are right.
Does that make sense?”
– It does indeed Bob. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not getting at you. Forgive me for my use of the word ‘sloppy’, it was unfair. It wasn’t intended to grate, although I appreciate it probably did. My apologies.
However, I still (respectfully) take issue with some of this. First things first, I wasn’t too fussed about your response to Victor in particular, I was ‘taking aim’ at your analysis of fundamentalism. Second, related to my first point, I appreciate that this analysis is yours and yours alone. Nonetheless, third, I would wish to press you on this. Would you regard the fundamentalist attitude you described above as wrong? If so, wouldn’t this make you a fundamentalist, by your own reckoning?
This is what *I* was sloppily getting at; again, apologies for not putting this across clearly before. I’m pressing this matter for two reasons. First, people – in general – often put forward definitions of ‘fundamentalism’ that would entrap not only non-fundamentalists but also themselves, the vast majority of the time. And second, ‘fundamentalism’ means something very particular, and I’m with Victor in his suspicion that in this thread and in this blog, the word is thrown around most haphazardly, and without discretion.
Thanks for your patience.
(And when I say ‘in this blog’, I mean, in the comments section. In fairness to NP, i don’t think i’ve seen him use the term.)
David,
You told me what you believe, and I was right in my assessment of what you believe after reading it. But you asked me about “…a cartoon that you {I} find separatist.”
Your going to the defense of your global warming belief, and by your words in answer to my reply, just solidify my pointing out that some of your toons are separatist. You were staking a position knowing full well that some people on this blog may well disagree with you. You made some harsh conclusions about those who disagree with you. Can’t you see that. Just killing our great, great grandchildren is nasty, man. To say such a thing because we see things different than you, that’s harsh.
Now answer me, you don’t see potential for separation through that toon? You know it has caused fighting and separation in many circles, not just the Christian community.
Come on man, I make one comment and then am accused of ‘to hell with others.’ That caused separation rather quickly.
fishon
fishon: I’m really trying to understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. I think I hear you saying that I hold separate opinions or ideas from others. I agree. In fact, there are as many opinions as there are people. So some people believe global is real, and others believe it isn’t. Separate ideas. Right? Right. But that’s normal. Maybe even healthy. Maybe even necessary. But I don’t equate separate ideas with separation. You and I have separate ideas about a lot of things. But I know we are one and even feel connected to you. Separate ideas, yes. Separated, no.
NathanL said “– Indeed. My point would be that these other views of reality are hopeless (quite literally), namely in their double standards. You’re saying the same thing, just coating it differently. In order to postulate these other ‘views’ of reality as decent or worthy of being held up, you have to posit their ‘rightness’, to the detriment of a plethora of other views (in this case, so-called ‘fundamentalisms’).”
What is interesting is that grace itself exists outside this right/wrong paradigm. Forgiveness exists outside of this right/wrong world view. Eye for and eye and tooth for a tooth are a right/wrong world view.
And it’s interesting how you reduce all other views of reality as holding double standards and literally hopeless. In reality I don’t observe hopelessness in people who hold these views. In fact I observe quite the opposite.
NathanL said “To put it simply, one can’t criticise someone else for saying that something’s/someone’s wrong without falling into the same error.”
I think we can observe that every world view has strengths and weaknesses. To call one particular approach the only approach for all applications is what fundamentalism seems to defend. And that approach is talked about as if its so simple to understand and and it’s well defined and everyone else is literally hopeless to use your word.
Fundamentalists claim to have universal truth with no evidence for that at all. Now I’m sure you can find some exceptions but fundamentalism has been defined by its most vocal proponents. It is a generalization, but so are all labels. I think this is really a red herring.
NathanL said – ” I would wish to press you on this. Would you regard the fundamentalist attitude you described above as wrong? ”
NathanL, thanks for your thoughts…and the answer is no. I do not find anything “wrong”, (as in immoral, incorrect, inaccurate) with fishons “attitude”. I just find it extremely unpleasant.
I realize, thanks to you, that I have miss used the term “fundamentalist” by “thrown[ing it] around most haphazardly, and without discretion”, and by following it with “attitude”. It is a prejudicial generalization on my part to apply that label to anyone because not all fundamentalists Christians have the same “attitude”.
Now I will have to come up with another term for the belligerent disposition displayed by some strict, intolerant bible believing Christians. Thanks a lot!
RICHARD HARTY SAID: “What is interesting is that grace itself exists outside this right/wrong paradigm. Forgiveness exists outside of this right/wrong world view. Eye for and eye and tooth for a tooth are a right/wrong world view.”
– What, precisely, does this *mean*? Grace is unmerited favour; grace brings salvation. Surely, grace does NOT exist outside of the ‘right/wrong’ worldview since it brings us into RIGHT standing with God from the WRONG of sinfulness? Or are we working with some novel interpretation of grace here, or are we saying that sin is not wrong (but that would, of course, exclude the need for grace altogether, so…)? Forgiveness is the putting right of what went wrong. Grace is the salvific but unmerited action of one in the right, towards those who are wrong. Not to ape the point, but either you’re really not on the ball when you say that grace is ‘outside’ of the right/wrong distinction, or you need to do a heck of a lot of elaborating on precisely what you mean by this.
(Interestingly enough, all models of atonement – the event and means of grace – presume wrong and right. Think about it. Ransom: the freeing of those in the wrong by Him who is in the right. Satisfaction: the right payment for wrong. Abelard: the demonstration of right love towards those in the wrong. Penal Substitution: the taking of the punishment of the wrong by the one who is in the right. … etc. You get the point. This is a New as WELL as Old Covenant thing.)
RICHARD HARTY SAID: “And it’s interesting how you reduce all other views of reality as holding double standards and literally hopeless. In reality I don’t observe hopelessness in people who hold these views. In fact I observe quite the opposite.”
– I don’t ‘reduce’ them to hopelessness and double standards, i’m arguing that they are, in and of themselves, as such. What’s more, I’m not doing this with “ALL OTHER” views of reality, i’m doing it with that very particular and isolated view of reality that dismisses the ‘right/wrong’ distinction. It’s hopeless because it doesn’t stand on anything, it floats in an ether of ambiguity; hope by its necessity has to be anchored in something, even if just abstractly. It’s riddled with double standards because it has to dismiss as “wrong” those views that embrace the “right/wrong” distinction, whilst proposing itself to be “right”.
RICHARD HARTY SAID: “I think we can observe that every world view has strengths and weaknesses. To call one particular approach the only approach for all applications is what fundamentalism seems to defend. And that approach is talked about as if its so simple to understand and and it’s well defined and everyone else is literally hopeless to use your word.”
But this is precisely it, Richard. You are doing exactly the same thing. You’re critiquing the worldview that (in your words) regards itself as the only approach. But to do this, you have to believe that your worldview on this matter is exclusively valid, to the *negation* of the worldview that you’re critiquing! In short, your worldview has to be the defeater of the worldview you’re dismissing; it has to be the only application and approach, otherwise your critique is pointless. (After all, we can’t say that *both* ‘fundamentalism’ and you are right, otherwise we’re in a very nasty logical predicament.)
RICHARD HARTY SAID: “Fundamentalists claim to have universal truth with no evidence for that at all.”
– Well, hang on. Earlier you made two, very bold, universal, absolute statements:
1) “grace itself exists outside this right/wrong paradigm.”
and
2) “Forgiveness exists outside of this right/wrong world view”
Pardon me if this sounds confrontational, it’s sincerely not, but, what excuses you in this matter but not the so-called ‘fundamentalists’ you seek to criticise?
NathanL said “But this is precisely it, Richard. You are doing exactly the same thing. You’re critiquing the worldview that (in your words) regards itself as the only approach. But to do this, you have to believe that your worldview on this matter is exclusively valid, to the *negation* of the worldview that you’re critiquing! In short, your worldview has to be the defeater of the worldview you’re dismissing; it has to be the only application and approach, otherwise your critique is pointless. (After all, we can’t say that *both* ‘fundamentalism’ and you are right, otherwise we’re in a very nasty logical predicament.)”
Well I guess we are all fundamentalists. LOL
Actually what I did attempt to communicate is that no one is exclusively valid. There is error and paradox in any description of reality. And it’s true that you can point out inconsistency in any claim, which is basically skepticism.
When I look for the value of quality of life, I don’t find it in logical descriptions because joy, love, and other very human experiences are subjective. To me grace and forgiveness are appeals to this part of ourselves. You can certainly define grace and forgiveness in legal terms, but in some sense they are abandoning a world view that needs to hold people accountable in the hope that love will become the motivation, not obligation, duty, or fear.
I think this is what many fundamentalists miss, which is really a form of mechanistic rationalism that holds some type of sacred text combined with tradition as the definition of reality. And reason is used to find ways to make that happen and feelings are given very little or no value.
I find little difference between mechanistic atheists and fundamentalists. To me, both of those world views feel hopeless.
Richard said – “I find little difference between mechanistic atheists and fundamentalists. To me, both of those world views feel hopeless.”
??? Richard, I am interested in an explanation of exactly what you are saying. Keep in mind that I’m not the sharpest tool in shed, so if you could dumb it down a tad I would appreciate it.
I think you are saying that both (mechanistic atheists and fundamentalists) rely heavily, if not entirely, on the external dictates of their ideology (their bible, their science books) and refuse to be swayed by any internal emotional conflict…or something to that affect.
Am I close?
Bob said “I think you are saying that both (mechanistic atheists and fundamentalists) rely heavily, if not entirely, on the external dictates of their ideology (their bible, their science books) and refuse to be swayed by any internal emotional conflict…or something to that affect.
Am I close?”
Yes, that could be one way to describe parts of it. I think atheists don’t look at their science books quite the same way Christians see the Bible, but tend to hold the idea that nothing happens without a predictable cause and effect including human consciousness and emotion. In pure mechanism, there is no subjective reality.
nathanL: i read an interesting book last year called “I Don’t Believe in Atheists”. His thesis is that the problem isn’t with religion or atheism, but with the fundamentalist mindset which finds expression in all ideologies.
nakedpastor said, on December 21st, 2009 at 12:10 am
nathanL: i read an interesting book last year called “I Don’t Believe in Atheists”. His thesis is that the problem isn’t with religion or atheism, but with the fundamentalist mindset which finds expression in all ideologies.
————-Oops, there’s those labeled. I seem to remember you lamenting about labels. Hey, are you agreeing with the book and it’s labeling?
fishon
Thanks, out to NP and PL for being somewhat definitional. Precision and accuracy can be pretty terrifying incisors upon the tender faithful….
As I alluded to in my comments, I recognized this as apologetic, but wanted to make sure things were clear (and have some fun with the words).
As to the “but “i’m sorry”, if that helps.” I do not accept. I do not think it helps. I was trying to express that I was most proud of you for making a stand, but I believe being sorry about it doesn’t help your cause. You’re on the journey, man! Have some confidence in the steps you have accomplished. Maybe you’ve stumbled, but you’ve also soared!
My personal opinion here, but contrary to some comment-makers, I would never compare you to or describe you as a politician.
fishon…my question was have you considered the fact that David has hit a part of the journey that you haven’t….it in no way was saying that you haven’t had your times of questioning etc. just that David may have gotten to something that others havn’t. I do think that if you had travelled the part of the road he’s on that you’ld be supportive and tell him where the potholes are rather than being antagonistic and disrespectful of his honesty. There are times I honestly think you come on here looking for a fight. You sure give that impression at times. As for misunderstanding apology, theres nothing wrong with it except for your slant on what David was saying. As for your statement that he was trying to create a new God with his Z-theory, no he isn’t.He’s articulating what he has experienced in that place where there are no words and each of us has a different way to express it. As many people as there are, there are ways to express God, since God is infinite and can never be fully expressed.
nakedpastor said – nathanL: i read an interesting book last year called “I Don’t Believe in Atheists”. His thesis is that the problem isn’t with religion or atheism, but with the fundamentalist mindset which finds expression in all ideologies.
fishon said – Oops, there’s those labeled. I seem to remember you lamenting about labels. Hey, are you agreeing with the book and it’s labeling?
David said he found the book interesting. fishon seizes the opportunity to create a straw man and accuse Davide as being hypocritical. This is consistently fishon: try desperately to create conflict where none exists.
nakedpastor: thanks for the reference. i’ve come across that title before, but i can’t say i’ve read it.
there are similarities between ‘fundamentalisms’ and other ideologies, but i think you shoot yourself in the foot if you say that they’re to be found in the tendency to engage in absolutes. after all, as i’ve been trying to say, to say that fundamentalism is wrong is to say so unequivocally and absolutely, and so you condemn yourself as a fundamentalist. clearly that method of definition is fallacious.
fundamentalism is more often than not unable to maintain tension and host multiple hermeneutics at once. for example, the Westboro Baptist Church are unable (or unwilling) to hold Scripture’s affirmations of God’s love and God’s judgement in any sort of mature balance, despite Evangelical Protestantism having written and reflected on this for centuries. they are also unable (or unwilling) to empathise with opposed interpretations and perspectives, immediately dismissing them as the subjects of wrath or the harbingers of the promised tribulation. They refuse to evaluate these alternative views for themselves; you will find no empathic, reasoned argumentation, only a re-affirmation of the hermeneutic already held.
another example in militant atheism. they are unable (or unwilling) to hold evidentialism and presuppositionalism in any sort of mature balance, despite the Western World being aware of the tension between observation and the super-empirical for centuries. they are also unable (or unwilling) to empathise with opposed interpretations and perspectives, immediately dismissing them as ‘deluded’ or manifestations of an archaic, irrational system of them. They refuse to evaluate these alternative views from within the alternative schema, nor will they consider the shortcomings of logical positivism.
And so on. ‘Fundamentalism’, so defined, has nothing to do with absolutes, universals or the tendency to suggest something as wrong. These are good things, they are common to ALL thinkers, fundamentalist or not, whether they’re conscious of it or not. Instead, ‘fundamentalism’ has all to do with an inability or unwillingness to hold matters in tension, and to empathise and evaluate within an opposed perspective.
(This is also historically consistent with ACTUAL, specific Fundamentalism, i.e. the early 20th century, theological response to evolutionary theory (re: the Scopes Monkey trial). The word has been abused, but it has always referred to this.)
NathanL: here’s just one quote: “It is culture, history, circumstances, tradition, economics and the deep self-interest of the tribe or the nation that more powerfully inform belief systems than the contradictory and often impenetrable pages of the Bible, the Koran or any other sacred text.”
fishon said, “You know full well that there is a huge difference of opinion in the Christian community on the gorbal warming position….Are you going to tell me that you had no thought of folks like me who think gorbal warming [abnormal] is bunk, when you did it and wrote what you wrote?”
On what basis do the “Christian Community” disagree about Global Warming and “think it’s bunk”? Is there a significant group of atmospheric scientists, who also happen to be Christians, in that group? I’m unaware of any. The only significant disagreement on the matter comes from the mouths of the ignorant, the Jim Inhofe’s of this world, people who have a short-term financial stake in creating discord.
The science is clear. If you aren’t a trained atmospheric scientist, you don’t have the credentials to make judgments on scientific matters. Hey, I got First Aid merit badge in Boy Scouts, so obviously I’m qualified to comment, have opinions on, and even perform brain surgery, right? I think not.
The only thing we Christians, those of us who are not trained atmospheric scientists anyway, are qualified to discuss on the matter is whether or not we care if people in the Maldives, or Bangladesh or Cape Cod loose their homes and/or die as a result of climate changes we humans are most definitely creating. To pretend we have the knowledge to make judgments on the science is ludicrous. The last thing any member of the Christian community should be doing is taking demonstrably-false stands on issues about which he or she is ignorant.
larry p,
I hesitate to answer you because of your arrogance with such a statement like:::::”The science is clear. If you aren’t a trained atmospheric scientist, you don’t have the credentials to make judgments on scientific matters.”
——–First, science is NOT clear. Second, I don’t have to have credentials to make a judgment or form an opinion. You may not like my conclusions—–but wait—– unless you are a trained ‘atmospheric scientist’ how can you possibly disagree with my conclusions. For by your own principle, unless someone is trained in the field you can’t draw a conclusion. So how can you possible say the science is clear–that is unless you are a trained ‘atmospheric scientist.” Are you???
Hey, have you written algor and told him he can’t make a judgment because he is NOT an ‘atmospheric scientist?” How about some of the hollywood idiots? Of course you have written to obama? Oh wait, you guys have the right to make a judgment and have an opinion, but someone like me doesnt’.
YOU:On what basis do the “Christian Community” disagree about Global Warming and “think it’s bunk”? Is there a significant group of atmospheric scientists, who also happen to be Christians, in that group?
———I don’t know. I don’t care if the thousands of scientist who say it is NOT so, are Christian or not.
The only significant disagreement on the matter comes from the mouths of the ignorant, the Jim Inhofe’s of this world, people who have a short-term financial stake in creating discord.
———-Now that is a huge laugh. algor has made millionnnnnnnnnnn. Give me a break.
YOU:Hey, I got First Aid merit badge in Boy Scouts, so obviously I’m qualified to comment, have opinions on, and even perform brain surgery, right? I think not.
——–Ok, smart guy. If you are not an atmospheric scientist, then by you own principle and admission, you have no right to comment or have and opinion any more than Inhofe. So are you a scientist of any kind????
YOU:The only thing we Christians, those of us who are not trained atmospheric scientists
——–Well there it is. You are not one of the chosen, so by your own criteria, and I will use YOUR words {If you aren’t a trained atmospheric scientist, you don’t have the credentials to make judgments on scientific matters.}, you shouldn’t even have an opinion or judgment. Eat your way out of that box, bud.
YOU:To pretend we have the knowledge to make judgments on the science is ludicrous.
———-Now let me get this; you call Inhofe {the mouths of the ignorant, the Jim Inhofe’s of this world,}, but you have no more scientific education than him. So if Inhofe is ignorant, what does that make you?
YOU:The last thing any member of the Christian community should be doing is taking demonstrably-false stands on issues about which he or she is ignorant.
—————But you have
fishon
Sorry, fison if I got your hackles up overly much. Not good for ones’ digestion. In fact, I do have training in atmospheric science. I have been following the science on anthropomorphic climate change for decades. The scientific evidence has only strengthened in that time.
There are not thousands of scientists who disagree with the science of climate change. There are, indeed, people with engineering and biology degrees and the like who parrot people like Jim Inhofe, but who have not actually studied the issue in any depth. The people who have studied the issue, panels from organizations like the American Geophysical Union, The American Chemical Society, The American Physical Society, etc. are all pretty much in agreement on the essentials of the science related to climate change. Al Gore spent considerable time studying the scientific consensus and then interpreted it in more lay terms so the rest of us could understand.
The only significant opposition is really on the basis of “I don’t want to pay for it”, but since that sounds overly selfish, people make up statements like Inhofe does, claiming the science if fraudulent. He never shows how it is indeed fraudulent because he cannot. He doesn’t get people who could demonstrate the fraudulence of anthropogenic climate change to stand up and do so because he can’t find them. All he can do is find people with a “technical” background of some kind to say what he wants them to say. That is sufficient for bamboozling the masses.
As I said, people can and should make judgments on whether or not they care, because that determines our actions or not regarding the issue. But to reject the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, or to impugn the integrity of the majority of scientists, merely because you don’t like what they have to tell you, is no way to solve society’s problems.
I don’t know you….but I like you.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. (Ralph Waldo Emerson)
If you are consistent, that means that you are not learning and changing your opinions and behaviors as you learn. Where is the virtue in this?
I think there are two types of pastors: the spokesman for God, and the fellow-traveler. The Spokesman seeks to spoon-feed spirituality to his flock; to them, it’s a spectator sport, one to watch but not to participate in. The Spokesman talks at us. He speaks; we listen. It’s a lecture or a sermon or a Jeremiad.
The Fellow Traveler is just another person, perhaps more dedicated to finding answers, but otherwise no different than anyone else – and certainly no better. His job, I believe, is to walk alongside us, to point out things we may not have noticed, but also to honestly tell us when he’s not sure where he’s going. The Fellow Traveler talks with us. He speaks and we listen; but then we speak, and he listens. It’s a dialog.
We’re all living in the question. Some of us think they have answers. They are mistaken.