'God would not allow Earth to be destroyed by global warming', no need for regulation

Remove all ads!

... said GOP Representative John Shimkus (R-IL), because God would not allow the Earth to be destroyed by global warming. He is seeking the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He said:

​

I like it how he insistently approaches the scientific questions on Global warming as a theological argument (well, actually, I don't).

He is certainly as qualified to judge questions of science like whether global warming exists as a witch doctor is fit to chair the United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) - everything else would be crassly intolerant and suggest religious discrimination.

​

... speaking of which, help. That Shimkus person has the same right to vote as a sane or qualified representative has.

 

This guy is too dumb to even be allowed to vote. By his reasoing we should start nuclear wars as well. No problem. Doesn`t say in the bible that nuclear bombs will destroy the earth either.

 

American, by any chance?

 

By his logic we should just stop doing everything.

"Don't watch you kids near swimming pools. God won't let them drown."

"Don't bother going to work. God won't let you starve."

"Don't bother having security at airports. God won't let the evil people blow you up. Er, which ones were the evil ones again?"

 

I think he is being logical by being religious. Global Warming advocates are saying that holes in the ozone layer will melt the Polar ice caps which will result in a massive flooding of the world. It is true that science have it's points and people accept that. But whether you like it or not. More than half of the Earth's population do believe in a supreme being of some sort. So really, what can you do to keep them from believing a theological premise is a logical reasoning for this issue?

For the record. Having been a Christian since I was a kid, I have always believed that Global Warming (with the melting ice cap causing catastrophic flood) will never be the cause of human extinction because of those reasons Shimkus stated. BUT it doesn't mean that I believe that Global Warming should be regarded as a small problem. It is a major problem that needed to be addressed. In another way of saying it, I believe that Global Warming will not cause a big flood but I ain't gonna use that reasoning to suggest reopening of closed carbon mines. Or stretching it to "Don't bother blah, blah, blah because God won't let it happen." type of thinking.

On the contrary, I believe he is more intelligent than you think he is. While I am not judging him, it looks more like he is trying to gain the nod of the religious factions to side with his suggestion of reopening those mines. Shrewd is what I'd characterized him.

Yup, the Bible never mention any thing about nuclear bombs but it specifically states God will destroy the world with fire. So nuclear bombs are a possibility but it's dumb to suggest it's the actual cause. If you reason that Global Warming could fry the Earth, then I'd say I can agree with that.



No offense but I feel you guys are kind'a over reacting by putting the guy's logic to the other side of extremity.

 

I can see where he's coming from. However, if you follow that train of thought through, why did God let Eve eat the forbidden fruit?

 

Yes, and why did God let Noah bring carnivores onto the Ark? Since they would have to eat the other animals Noah saved after they got off the boat.

 

Ah yes, that bit about problems inherent in Biblical literalism ... an approach that drives people into attempts to disprove the preposterous assertion by so called 'scientists' that world is not 5000 or 6000 years old and that it was not created in six days, after which The Lord rested - which is after all why we have Sundays - in itself evidence enough to disprove the preposterous claims of these so-called 'scientists'.

As I have always said in the threads about teaching evolution and creation in school - that is all fine as long as the one is taught in science classes and the other in religious studies. What I observe is an inability of doctrinaire biblical Literalists to accept that; they can't help but conflate the two. It's all theology to them. More, science and scientific conclusions must conform with their theology.

 

There is a difference between saying "God promise not to destroy the world with water." from "God said don't eat the forbidden fruit." The former suggest that a certain action will not be taken while the later implies something bad will happen if the action is taken. So if we do follow that train of thought through, it just goes that God will destroy the world but it definitely won't be Global Warming melting the ice caps to flood the world. Global Warming results in greenhouse effect and frying everything might be a more "theological" scenario.

Why worry about the carnivores when the beavers, termites and woodpeckers behaved themselves?

 

Love it!

As to the original comment. I, too, believe that God will not allow Global Warming and a great flood to wipe out the human race. Just like he didn't allow the black plague to wipe out the human race. Mind you, I'd still prefer to avoid a repeat, what with the millions of deaths and horrible suffering and all, but it wouldn't wipe out the entire human race.

My point is that I think only the most radical GW loons actually say GW will wipe out the entire human race. And there are a whole slew of nasty things short of that which could happen and still allow everything in the Bible to happen as prophicied. God never mentioned the United States of America, after all. Or the European Union.

 

Oh, I like to read that. I thought you worse

 

The question is, did you really believe that guy is putting his theological reason because he completely believes in it? I mean I subscribe to that theory but as I said, I think that guy is just shrewd. Completely disregarding Global Warming so he can get those mines reopened. He could have seen that those mines wrecks havoc to the environment and I'm sure he can cough up other sources of income for those miners. So again, did you really believe that guy is sincere about his theological reasoning?

 

The problem is free will I think. Some global warming is going to happen regardless of our actions. However, the global warming caused by man has occurred because of our choices and actions. God doesn't interfere with free will. If he did then we wouldn't be having this discussion!

 

I too agree with this. Even if the polar ice caps melted entirely, they would not submerge the entire land masses of the world under water. He correctly points out that temperatures were much warmer during the time of the dinosaurs, so much warmer that there may have been no ice caps at all, and there was still dry land on the surface. However, it's not God's will that will prevent us from all being under water - it's simply the volume of water in the ice caps isn't enough to submerge the entire world.

Further, it's not like they're going to melt overnight, and we're going to wake up one day under water. Still, it would appear that because of his religious beliefs are his reason for inaction on GW, and that's not something I can condone.

 

Partially agree. True, man's free will have indeed resulted in global warming. And it did happened. Our actions have already put a hole in the ozone layer. However, God can intervene by not allowing the whole Polar ice cap to be melted. Perhaps a few big chunks, a flooding here or a flooding there and a number of people might have to suffer or die because of it. But definitely it's not going to be like the days of Noah or Kevin Costner's Waterworld.

 

Well yeah, but God could've intervened and not let the Twin Towers be attacked. He could have made sure Adolf Hitler was never born. He could stop children dying from treatable illness in the third world.

 

Perhaps God would not destroy the earth, but he would (if you believe the bible) allow for a significant portion of the population to die off. It's referred in some circles as "cleansing the earth."

 

But remember - he LOVES you. (Tough love, evidently.)

 

This idiot can NOT be serious.

Religion and politics - Never mix 'em.

 

I agree with him that global warming shouldn't be regulated. Well, at least not as panicked as a lot of people try to regulate it. The earth and its climate changes in ways we can not regulate and don't even fully understand. Some scientists believe that one or two cooler summers can throw the world back into an ice age, or if the world warms up because of the green house effect and the polar caps melt, some sea currents stop and we'll get an instant ice age as well. In the past, there were often periods of extreme heat or extreme cold, but the world recovered from it and gave us the mild climate we have now. As I understand it, this might be the first time in the history of the Earth we are in an interglacial and have both poles covered in ice. But there really is no way to know if we're gonna keep this mild climate or if the Earth has other plans, so in my opinion there's no need to go out of our way to try and regulate it. But I'll still buy energy efficient light bulbs.

But the guy in the video needs to give his religion a reality check.