  |
Hey! Speak for yourself! I am looking forward to Evangelicals taking a stand on whether Sharapova is hotter than Anna . . . |
Posted on 02/02/2006 7:21:10 AM PST by ZGuy
The National Association of Evangelicals said yesterday that it has been unable to reach a consensus on global climate change and will not take a stand on the issue, disappointing environmentalists who had hoped that evangelical Christians would prod the Bush administration to soften its position on global warming.
Over the past four years a growing number of evangelical groups have embraced environmental causes, urging Christians to engage in "Creation care" and campaigning against gas-guzzling SUVs with advertisements asking, "What would Jesus drive?"
In October 2004 the Rev. Ted Haggard of Colorado Springs, called the environment "a values issue."
But this fledgling movement has met internal resistance. In a letter to Haggard last month, more than 20 evangelical leaders urged the NAE not to adopt "any official position" on global climate change because "Bible-believing evangelicals . . . disagree about the cause, severity and solutions to the global warming issue."
The letter's signers amounted to a Who's Who of politically powerful evangelicals..
Calvin DeWitt, professor of environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin called the statement "a retreat and a defeat." He said. "This will have negative consequences for the ability of evangelicals to influence the White House, unfortunately and sadly."
But E. Calvin Beisner, professor of social ethics at Knox Theological Seminary, applauded the NAE's non-position.
Beisner said they had feared that the NAE was going "to assume as true certain things that we think are still debatable, such as that global warming is not only real but also almost certainly going to be catastrophically harmful; second, that it is being driven to a significant extent by human activity; and third, that some regime, some international treaty for mandatory reductions in CO2emissions, could make a significant enough drop in global emissions to justify the costs to the human economy."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The National Association of Evangelicals said yesterday that it has been unable to reach a consensus on global climate change and will not take a stand on the issue, disappointing environmentalists who had hoped that evangelical Christians would prod the Bush administration to soften its position on global warming.
Peter Principle in Action award. That they are spending time on this issue tells me they are not competent to do what they are suppose to do which is..........oh never mind.
I guess when the topic is a lefty issue, the envirowhackos are eager for the religious rights to be involved in government. More hypocrisy from the left.
Why do Evangelicals have to have a stand on Global Warming? Scientists should do science. Theologians should do theology. We have enough trouble with Evolution/Creationism. On that issue, I understand why both parties feel they have to have an opinion. But Global Warming?
Are the Southern Baptists in this association?
The proposition is ludicrous on its face! Why would Christians endorse the beliefs of earth worshippers?
They could learn a lesson from Catholics on that point. Getting involved in scientific disputes (especially staking out a religious position) is bound to back-fire when the scientific consensus shifts.
In a related story, atheists gathering at the annual Atheistfest, have refused to take a stance on strip-mining.
"They wuss about SUV's but not about pickup trucks which are the same drive train and chassis..."
That chaps me as well. There are FAR more trucks on the road than SUVs. GM's best sellers? Trucks. Ford's best sellers? Trucks. As you said, they have the same drive trains as SUVs except in the cases where they are actually geared lower for towing and get worse mileage.
Disclaimer: I like trucks and recocgnize them as indespensable work and commerce tools in our society. I just find it funny the enviro-whackos never mention them.
| |
Hey! Speak for yourself! I am looking forward to Evangelicals taking a stand on whether Sharapova is hotter than Anna . . . |
Not only should they not endorse earth-worshippers, but they should not endorse the underlying philosophy which is that humans are a scourge on the face of the planet.
Todays "evangelical" Christians are tomorrow's "liberal mainline" Christians. They drift away from Christ into the humanistic streams of the world.
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
Nuff said?
***"What would Jesus drive?"***
A donkey cart?
And just who gave to Man "dominion over the earth"?
Unfortunately, G*d didn't see fit at the same time (or later,either) to make honesty inherent in Man, thus assuring the deliberately disingenuous of those such as enviros.
This is actually a good thing. The NAE realized that the best way to reduce global warming is not to add any more hot air to the atmosphere.
I'm surprised nobody else here's figured that out yet.
Evangelicals don't take a stand on Global Warming because we know, that in the end, it's all going to burn up anyway!
Are the Southern Baptists in this association?
Anybody know the answer?
http://logosresourcepages.org/Positions/nae.htm
On March 4, Timothy J. Mercaldo led the worship while seated at the piano. A video prepared by the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) on Celebrate Jesus-2000 was shown. SBC's goal is to "share Christ with everyone by the year 2000." (Later on, a pastor referred to this video and forcefully declared over the microphone, "The Southern Baptist Convention need not think I am going to join them in their program. I'm not a Baptist!" The spirit of unity and oneness was suddenly broken!!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.