Climate chage report

[Quoner]

19 hours ago, KRAM1 said:

Or "indoctrinated" in climate science and related disciplines perhaps? There is a long history of scientists firmly "proving" one thing just to find out later, given more time and study and new factors, that what they "firmly believed" was in fact, not so "firm". See the simple argument on whether caffeine is good or bad for you as one small example. Or perhaps the once widely believed "fact" that the world was flat.  I am guessing that over 97% of all scientists at the time had all the facts they needed to "prover" that the earth was flat.  Yes, a long time ago, but still a case in point regarding scientific "facts".  So, we all should perhaps "excuse" those skeptics among us that are not "convinced" regarding the science of climate change as yet.  We will get there in plenty of time to "save the planet". History has shown us that if nothing else. Hey, Columbus' ships did not sail off the edge of the world...nor did Lief Erickson's either for that matter.

Anyway, I am enjoying this discussion as it seems to have not turned into a spitting match of any kind (for the most part) and I, for one, am enjoying the discussion....both sides of it as well.

It's Always Sunny already made this argument for you much more effectively. 

 

[KRAM1]

57 minutes ago, Quoner said:

It's Always Sunny already made this argument for you much more effectively. 

 

HaHa!  That's really funny. Doesn't fit my position at all on climate change, but heck...that is darn funny.  Welcome back by the way.  

[GTWT]

Shell oil links executive bonuses to carbon reduction -

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-46424830

[UNTFan23]

Has anyone been paying attention to what's happening across the pond in France? Let's hope our leaders dont make that mistake.

[GTWT]

7 hours ago, UNTFan23 said:

Has anyone been paying attention to what's happening across the pond in France? Let's hope our leaders dont make that mistake.

Increased taxes on diesel?  Why do you think that's a mistake?

[UNTFan23]

11 minutes ago, GTWT said:

Increased taxes on diesel?  Why do you think that's a mistake?

Any tax on fuel is passed on to a consumer -- food, general merchandise, etc -- for starters.

To me, it's not so much the increase itself but how large the increase is. A $0.30 increase seems awfully steep and was set to continue increasing in the coming years. I believe France has at least postponed the increase but we'll see whether it actually goes through or not.

[KingDL1]

On 12/4/2018 at 8:04 AM, UNTFan23 said:

Any tax on fuel is passed on to a consumer -- food, general merchandise, etc -- for starters.

To me, it's not so much the increase itself but how large the increase is. A $0.30 increase seems awfully steep and was set to continue increasing in the coming years. I believe France has at least postponed the increase but we'll see whether it actually goes through or not.

The problem is there is no thought in any of this pro man made climate change just an agenda and if they say enough it must be true. There no discussion here because it is not science to them, it is almost a blind religion. 

[GTWT]

7 hours ago, KingDL1 said:

The problem is there is no thought in any of this pro man made climate change just an agenda and if they say enough it must be true. There no discussion here because it is not science to them, it is almost a blind religion. 

KingDL, you lost me.  Are you saying there's no discussion within science that anthropogenic climate change is real?  You do know that there are several respected scientific journals that deal with climatology.  Each is chock full of discussion of man's role in changing the environment.  There are well-attended conferences on climatology held annually.  Lots of discussion - little religion.

[UNTLifer]

On 12/6/2018 at 7:30 AM, GTWT said:

 Lots of discussion - little religion.

Why are you so anti-religion?

[GTWT]

1 hour ago, UNTLifer said:

Why are you so anti-religion?

Religion can play a positive role in society - or a negative one.   If it leads followers to be loving & giving it's great.  If it leads to intolerance of other view-points or if it promotes ignorance it's terrible.  

I have religious beliefs by the way.

[UNTLifer]

2 hours ago, GTWT said:

Religion can play a positive role in society - or a negative one.  If it leads followers to be loving & giving it's great.  If it leads to intolerance of other view-points or if it promotes ignorance it's terrible. 

I have religious beliefs by the way.

So would you consider the Bible as a "loving and giving" book or an "intolerant" book?

[Censored by Laurie]

3 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

So would you consider the Bible as a "loving and giving" book or an "intolerant" book?

yes. 

[MeanGreenTexan]

12 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

yes. 

Fantastic answer.   I agree 100%.

[GTWT]

6 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

So would you consider the Bible as a "loving and giving" book or an "intolerant" book?

When it directs the Israelites to bash in the brains of the Canaanite babies it is intolerant, it is terrifying.  When it directs the believer to judge not, that's pretty good advice.

[UNTLifer]

15 hours ago, GTWT said:

When it directs the Israelites to bash in the brains of the Canaanite babies it is intolerant, it is terrifying.  When it directs the believer to judge not, that's pretty good advice.

So you have issues with the Old Testament and the law prescribed therein, but would agree with the grace extended through the New Testament?  I would agree with that. 

Edited December 8, 2018 by UNTLifer

[GTWT]

10 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

So you have issues with the Old Testament and their prescribed therein, but would agree with the grace extended through the New Testament?  I would agree with that. 

Both Old & New are venerated as "The Word of God".  How do you reconcile the very different messages?

[Mean Green 93-98]

14 hours ago, GTWT said:

When it directs the Israelites to bash in the brains of the Canaanite babies it is intolerant, it is terrifying.  When it directs the believer to judge not, that's pretty good advice.

Actually, both passages are similar.  "Judge not that ye be not judged."  God's judgment against the Canaanites is a mild precursor of the judgment to come.

[GTWT]

1 hour ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

Actually, both passages are similar.  "Judge not that ye be not judged."  God's judgment against the Canaanites is a mild precursor of the judgment to come.

So God judged those babies deserved to be bashed against the rocks?  

[Mean Green 93-98]

9 minutes ago, GTWT said:

So God judged those babies deserved to be bashed against the rocks?  

Actually, I believe you are conflating two passages there.  The Israelites sang a lament that wanted the adversaries who had dashed the Israelites' children against the rocks to suffer the same fate.  As far as the punishment against the Canaanites, their wickedness had brought God to a point where He was willing to let their children die (no mention of being "bashed against the rocks" in that context) as "collateral damage," if you will.

[GTWT]

27 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

Actually, I believe you are conflating two passages there.  The Israelites sang a lament that wanted the adversaries who had dashed the Israelites' children against the rocks to suffer the same fate.  As far as the punishment against the Canaanites, their wickedness had brought God to a point where He was willing to let their children die (no mention of being "bashed against the rocks" in that context) as "collateral damage," if you will.

“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked.  Show no mercy; have no pity!  Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children." Ezekiel 9

 "Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.  Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes.  For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off.  The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows.  They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children."  Isaiah 13

Of course, I'm sure the children deserved the wrath of God.

By the way, how can anything an omnipotent God does be "collateral damage"?

 

Edited December 8, 2018 by GTWT

[Mean Green 93-98]

Again, you are conflating passages.  None of them you cite above refers to the judgment God enacted through the Israelites against the Canaanites, nor to anything God commanded in His word.

As to your last question, I did say, "If you will"--I can't particularly think of a better way to describe it.  It's altogether unrelated to His Omnipotence either way.

[GTWT]

3 hours ago, GTWT said:

“Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked.  Show no mercy; have no pity!  Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children." Ezekiel 9

 "Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.  Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes.  For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off.  The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows.  They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children."  Isaiah 13

Of course, I'm sure the children deserved the wrath of God.

By the way, how can anything an omnipotent God does be "collateral damage"?

 

 

3 hours ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

Again, you are conflating passages.  None of them you cite above refers to the judgment God enacted through the Israelites against the Canaanites, nor to anything God commanded in His word.

As to your last question, I did say, "If you will"--I can't particularly think of a better way to describe it.  It's altogether unrelated to His Omnipotence either way.

In the first passage it was the Lord who said, "Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children."   In the second, whom exactly is the "I" if not God?  I think you're trying to absolve Yahweh from crimes He obviously committed, at least if you accept the Gospel as incontrovertible evidence.  I don't, by the way.

As for the inability of an omniscient God to commit collateral damage I think you understand the concepts better than to suggest that an omnipotent, omniscient god could do something unintentionally.

[MeanGreenTexan]

If you didn’t like OT God, you’re likely not going to enjoy the return either.   Its best to take advantage of His offer of Grace now.  Sadly, when you’re talking about a perfect, righteous God, there are no innocents.  

Rom. 3:23 /  Rom. 6:23  /  Rom.5:8  /  Rom 10:9-10  /  John 14:6

[Mean Green 93-98]

13 hours ago, GTWT said:

 

In the first passage it was the Lord who said, "Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children."   In the second, whom exactly is the "I" if not God?  I think you're trying to absolve Yahweh from crimes He obviously committed, at least if you accept the Gospel as incontrovertible evidence.  I don't, by the way.

As for the inability of an omniscient God to commit collateral damage I think you understand the concepts better than to suggest that an omnipotent, omniscient god could do something unintentionally.

In the first passage, figurative language is being used.  The Lord is depicted as speaking to angelic beings even though it was the Babylonian army that God used as His agent to destroy Jerusalem.  He did not verbally command the army in His word; God used them providentially.  There were of course no crimes that God committed--He gave life, and He alone has the right to take it again.

I never said that God did something unintentionally.  The point with my "collateral damage" comment, which I tried to point out from the beginning was not worded as well I would like, is that the focus of God's judgment was not on the children.  But sometimes children suffer for the sins of their parents.  Recall that God was pleased when Nineveh's repentance allowed innocent children likewise to be spared: "And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?" (Jonah 4:11).

[GTWT]

10 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

If you didn’t like OT God, you’re likely not going to enjoy the return either.   Its best to take advantage of His offer of Grace now.  Sadly, when you’re talking about a perfect, righteous God, there are no innocents.  

Rom. 3:23 /  Rom. 6:23  /  Rom.5:8  /  Rom 10:9-10  /  John 14:6

MGT, If you find comfort in the prophesy  of a second coming then your religion is a blessing to you.  You can't expect, however, that all others will agree with you.