SBC Leaders Coming Around on Global Warming

By signing this document, they have revealed themselves to be what they truly are, which is most certainly not conservative. They are no longer "our own"; we are not turning on them, they have turned on us. They deserve the full weight of criticism received for such treachery. Calling the entire convention out via letter -- not a classy move.

This is an opinion, not a fact.

This is the price of progress. Will you be the one to tell the billions of people in the world living in developing countries that they have to live without running water or electricity or paved roads, mired in a 19th-century standard of living, while you wrangle your liberal guilt on the internet, in your air-conditioned home? "Sorry, the environment may be going south, we're not quite sure, so the rest of the world, you gotta cut back -- sorry, can't catch up to us or our standard of living, because we're all suddenly worried what might happen if you tried. Yeah, I know there's filth and disease and incredibly high mortalities and poverty and no human rights to speak of and ignorance... no, you can't develop your economies to a reasonable level, sorry, global warming, you know. That's the real problem."

 

Praise God for independant Baptist churches.

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 3:00 a.m. ET by one of the Moderators.

LE

 

Q#1: Will this physical world last forever?
Q#2: Will the souls of those saved in this world last forever?
Q#3: Which of the 2 should be the priority?

 

How do you "defrock" a conservative? Do you hold them down and take their ID card so they can no longer be considered to be "card-carrying"? Do you tatoo a blue "L" on their forehead so everyone will know their "treachery"?

I cited Wendell Berry in my earlier post, and I will go back to him. Berry knows the limitations of action. He says that, individually, we have control over only so much. We should exercise our control where we can. That is all I am advocating. I do what I can here in Nashville to cut back my usage, and I encourage others to do the same. But it is their decision. It is analogous to standing before Christ at the moment of decision. We cannot make the decision for someone else. We can only make it for ourselves. Christianity spreads because of accumulation of individual decisions. Environmental remedies will ultimately be enacted in the same way, because increasing numbers of people will see that they can contribute to those remedies.

As I said earlier, this is an issue of stewardship, not of political or theological labels. Therefore, I still do not understand the level of anger that is being expressed against those people advocating change. I need some explanations because it seems to me that for someone to say that "they deserve the full weight of criticism received for such treachery" is unfair.

Tim Reynolds

 

You're willing to disfellowship someone over global warming? That's insane.

 

You make it sound as if it is an "either-or" choice, that we cannot do one without neglecting the other. I think we can and should do both. No, the physical world will not last forever. Yes, the souls of all will last forever. But, I think that professing Christians will be called to account for their good or poor stewardship just as they will be for their good or poor evangelism. However, I would point you toward Matthew 25.31-46 where the criteria for reward and punishment could be construed to involve stewardship, although I've never read it that way. But, it definitely does not involve evangelism of the kind I think you mean.

Tim Reynolds

 

I said nothing of the sort. I pointed out that they have revealed themselves to be truly liberal at heart, despite whatever conservative credentials they may have otherwise. I did not say anything about disfellowshipping the signatories or questioning their salvation or anything like that, only that they must be viewed as what they are: liberals.

They are treacherous for so boldly going against the resolved declaration of the SBC regarding this very matter, released less than a year ago. Where were they when this previous position statement was drafted? What has changed in less than a year to warrant such a full-scale defection? How can so many people signing a document that so wholly countermands the official position of the convention at large, a position that was thoroughly discussed and agreed upon by the delegates to said convention, be anything less than an act of rebellion?

Denominations have split irretrievably for causes lesser than this, and that without the public airing of grievances such as performed here. If one disagrees with the convention's positions, there are proper channels for fostering discussions which may lead to change (hopefully not rapid change, as conservatism by definition is supposed to resist change). Getting the media involved, setting up websites, recruiting followers with incomplete and inaccurate information, settling ones philosophical differences with the convention in the court of public opinion is a cheap move and without doubt an act of religious treachery.

 

It has been proven that it is not caused by the sun.

The following BBC article highlights a paper published in 2007 by the Proceedings of the Royal Society. The paper found that based on the sun's output, the global temperature should have declined over the last 20 years.

So if it isn't human and not the sun, what is it? Geothermal?

 

Jot and Tiddle

There are some who will damn you to who knows where ... even to being a Liberal if you do not agree with their every jot and tiddle. :tonofbricks:

 

Closed. LE