A TR blog made an interesting comment about Roman Catholic apologetics. In short, this writer said that “Catholic Apologetics” these days is really “Protestant- usually evangelical- Convert Apologetics.” You rarely read or hear from an RC apologist these days who is a cradle Catholic talking to interested Protestants. Instead, it’s converts working over their past theological home, with the obvious psychological edge of needing to show how really right they are in their decision to convert.

I think this is true, and explains why the entire tone of most RC apologists is sometimes incredibly unhelpful to me.

Joel, Good job on the imprecatory stuff.  Christians need to expose Christians to preserve credibility with a world that has no time for this unbiblical, self-righteous, and self serving, nonsense.  To what you’ve written I say, thank you and Amen!

Your plea for others to join you in cursing two people in the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State organization included this:

Let us join Paul and declare anathema upon anyone “who loves not the Lord Jesus.” I Cor 16:22

Paul also says Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the most of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer everyone. The two individuals you have cursed are not subject to the discipline of your church. The Corinthian citation is misapplied; it does not concern how we are to relate to those outside the church.

Drake says—

Jesus in Matthew 23: 13, 15, 16, 23, 24, 27, and 29 gave us our New Testament marching orders as well.

Jesus also says Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If you think you’re the victim in this, Pastor Drake, you should still model what Jesus commanded even if you are in fact wrong that someone has cursed or abused you (which you are).

Drake says—

John Calvin gave the church its marching orders from Scripture. The righteous have dominion, but only through imprecatory prayer against the ungodly.

Yet Jesus says: Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.

Pastor Drake, I would like to make three radical suggestions. (1) Admit that your endorsement of Huckabee was a violation of federal law. Ask for mercy from the state authorities over you (but don’t expect it) and promise not to do it again. (2) Go in person to the two people you are cursing, tell them that you acted in a way exactly the opposite of a true disciple of Christ, and ask for their forgiveness. (3) Tell your congregation and radio audience that what you did was illegal, morally wrong and you made it exponentially worse by the cursing. These three actions would be a good start.

Jesus was pronouncing woes upon pharisees. This isn’t at all relevant to the two people from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Nor is your earlier invocation of Matthew 18.

Back on the Osteen beat.

Can anyone confirm for me that Lifeway is selling Osteen?

TSK comments on recent criticisms of the EC and recent criticism of the critics.

Twelve great points on handling criticism.

Wyman Richardson with a good Barth post.

Wiley S. Drake

I have this irresistible image of a cartoon duck setting up complex traps involving ACME rockets, explosives etc to trap the godless liberals who incessantly cross the landscape – only for all his schemes to backfire, with hilarious consequences. Except without the hilarious consequences in this case.

This from the LA Times, not The Onion:

Wiley S. Drake, a Buena Park pastor and a former national leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, called on his followers to pray for the deaths of two leaders of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Drake is being gigged by the AUfSoCaS for endorsing a presidential candidate on church letterhead. Based on his personal interpretation of the imprecatory psalms, Drake wants the leaders to pay the ultimate price for calling him on it.

I’m embarrassed, once again.

PW: ROFLMAO. Made the day.

Randy,

I am somewhat prone to obsessive and compulsive behavior…

So, how many times a day do you check the BHT feed?

Phillip, is the transgarbulator’s exegesis open for revision? I can’t wait for version 4, when it produces infallible magisterium.

Re: Substances, I’m currently sipping a cup of blue mountain coffee that a friend brought back from her trip home to Jamaica. If I start writing incoherently, let me know. This cup is almost too smooth.

I personally see no connection between holiness and teetotaling.

Ahhh, what a beautiful sentence.  Well, I guess roast heretic is off the menu for lunch. :-)

Shea, I am a teetotaler because I just never started drinking.

I grew up in an alcohol-free zone at home and at church. For some reason that I can only partially explain, booze didn’t grab me when I went away to college. I theorize that it was because of watching my friends puke in the john and fall into the lakes on campus and stuff like that. I just didn’t get involved in the drinking, even while staying very involved with people who did. I will admit to doing other stuff that I’m not proud of, but none of it has to do with intake of foreign substances.
My wife is from a similar background, and I guess it just never came up as a real adult.

Teetotaling is nothing to be proud of, particularly, and I am not. It just so happens that I don’t drink. I find it quite awkward on business trips and the like, and sometimes I wish I could just have a glass of wine when everyone else does, but I haven’t done it. You could probably build a case that I am more ashamed of it than proud of it.
I am somewhat prone to obsessive and compulsive behavior, so perhaps I have saved my self and my family some grief by never getting started.

I personally see no connection between holiness and teetotaling. Some of the most unholy people I know are teetotalers. But my denomination discourages drinking alcohol, at least.

You allow [...] women, to speak.

Yes, but they very rarely do, do they? (jn)

sigh

Sharon! Sonia! You there? Missing you… :-)

Shea: Bill is also a non-drinker, despite a very brief foray into wine consumption on doctor’s orders a while back. He’s a Baptists, but the alcohol thing is apparently primarily preference. He doesn’t like the taste.

I’ve got this nonsense-to-English translator almost working now, let’s see what we get…

The simple truth is well… simple, some things we will know when we see Him.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Simplicity is too complex to understand. Effort is meaningless.

To swill beer then theorize is good, but how many of you folks refine your identity this way?

I’m a teetotaler, but I still practice drunken character assassination.

Not that I am against theological discussion or education, or that I have found fault in your site, but I have begun to wonder what motivates folks who participate in public forums such as yours.

This new-fangled “computer” stuff is all strangeness. In my day it was fashionable to wear a potato on your belt! Of course, your motivations are open to question, while the motivation for me sending this email is self-evident.

When preaching a message the last thing needed is for us to do it to define ourselves.

“The name Sinn Féin (pronounced /ʃɪn feɪn/ in English, [ʃiːɲ fʲeːnʲ] in Irish), which means “ourselves” or “we ourselves,” has been applied to a series of political movements since 1905 in Ireland, each of which claim or claimed sole descent from the original party established by Arthur Griffith in 1905.”

If definition of “ourselves” is not the last thing needed when preaching, it’s certainly pretty low on the list. I’m mentioning preaching here as a random word-association thing, because I figure most of you have heard some preaching before. Also, turnips.

What is it you wish to archive in shaping the motivations of Christians?

[ Note: The Transgarbulator 3.11 beta suggests that “archive” should actually be “achieve,” but it’s only a beta, so I’ve told it to go with the translation as written, without making word-substitutions. ]

You’re Christians—most of you, anyway—and I flatly disbelieve your claims to enjoy conversation with each other, so I’m going to suggest some alternate, more nefarious motives for your ongoing participation in this site (as well as your refusal to properly wear potatoes on your belts). You’re attempting to brainwash Christians by forcing them to load the site, make the commitment to read backwards, memorize the dozen or so active players, and then “educate” them. And you archive it all! Clearly, this is subversive, so what are your demands?

I assume you consider the motivations of commenter’s secondary in preference to the material submitted if it makes for good discussion.

[ Note: The Transgarbulator 3.11 beta suggests that the apostrophe in “commenter’s” is misplaced, and the “secondary” is not actually a possession of a singular “commenter.” Even though it is still a beta, the sentence is completely incomprehensible with the apostrophe in place, so I removed it before feeding it back through the TG 3.11 beta in only moderately incomprehensible form. ]

You allow donkeys to speak truth. You allow people who have matured beyond the point of sending random critical emails to disinterested websites owners to participate in this so-called “discussion” you claim to be having. You allow people with impure hearts, and women, to speak.

Thanks for reading my e-mail.

The nurse is coming with my meds, I’ve got to run!

I love this opening line from the top-ranked Amazon review on the NT Wright book linked by Joel yesterday:

The standing joke about Tom Wright goes like this: An inquiring student gives Dr Wright a call. His secretary says, “Sorry, but he is busy writing a book”. To which the student caller replies, “That’s OK, I’ll hold”.

Ah, the old ones are the best, aren’t they? (sw)

I thought the Nicene Creed and beer were the only things that held this group together.  So what’s with Randy being a teetotaler?  (jn) But seriously, I am curious if your teetotaling is just a preference, a precaution, or if you believe that alcohol and holiness are incompatible.

I have no idea what the lurker is trying to tell us.  Does anybody?

China to the monks of Tibet: you need our permission to reincarnate.

The State Administration for Religious Affairs has introduced a new law which “strictly stipulates the procedures by which one is to reincarnate”, describing it as “an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation.”

Of course, the real story behind this absurdity is that the Chinese are trying to control who becomes the next Dalai Lama.

Michael, be sure to save that email for a banner quote.

I received the following e-mail today. I think it has to do with why you people are afraid of comments, or why John is going to the hell he doesn’t believe in, or why the earth will soon be hell according to Bill and Joel.

The simple truth is well… simple, some things we will know when we see Him. To swill beer then theorize is good, but how many of you folks refine your identity this way? Not that I am against theological discussion or education, or that I have found fault in your site, but I have begun to wonder what motivates folks who participate in public forums such as yours. When preaching a message the last thing needed is for us to do it to define ourselves. What is it you wish to archive in shaping the motivations of Christians?

I assume you consider the motivations of commenter’s secondary in preference to the material submitted if it makes for good discussion. Thanks for reading my e-mail.

Thanks to the lurker, for whatever I think he/she is saying. :-)

To avoid turning this bar into a “John wittering on about hell all the time” blog, I’ve decided to set up a separate “John wittering on about hell all the time” blog over on Wordpress.com: And then comes the end. This is subtitled “an eschatological sketchpad”, as it’s a place for me to think aloud, record links and generally bash ideas around without boring people here or alarming people on my main blog. (jn)

So far it consists of cross-posted items from previous discussion here on the BHT, together with a post containing some very interesting material regarding Barth and Brunner on universal salvation. Comments welcome.

Michael: thanks for posting the update on the Korean hostages. I suppose it’s good for the 19 individuals concerned, but if the price is the South Korean government agreeing to underwrite the religious intolerance of the Taliban – to become, in effect, enforcers of fundamentalist Islamic policy towards Christianity – then that’s a very heavy price to pay. It suggests someone somewhere doesn’t really understand what all this is about.

Before giving a definitive judgment, though, I think I’d want to know more about what the S. Korean government has actually agreed to. Fox News says they agreed to “prevent Christian missionaries from working in Afghanistan”. The AP report published by the Guardian says Seoul has “sought to prevent missionaries from causing trouble in countries where they were not wanted”. Which isn’t quite the same thing.

But I don’t regard the Guardian (or AP) as a reliable source on anything to do with Christianity, and I don’t regard Fox as a reliable source on anything, so I’m suspending judgment for the moment. It doesn’t look good, though.

Thanks, Michael. Actually, it’s called, “Why Harry’s Christening, Mentioned by Rowling in That One Obscure Interview, was a Legitimate Baptism.”

That’s bound to sell lots of copies.

Travis Prinzi makes the announcement that he’s writing a book and being published. Congratulations Travis. The book is titled “Why Harry Potter Needed to be Immersed.”

I have done some fairly extensive editing of the rules. No changes, just editing, dropping a few, etc.

I thought I heard him say, “Don’t make it complicated.” Do you have to explain double imputation to proclaim the gospel? If so, I’d call that “contextualization.”

But it was beautifully presented, if you need that sort of high-concept atonement thing. I think it’s simpler here.

MOD: My thought was that he just gave about the best example I can think of for pulling out two points from the Biblical story and assuming that because they make sense to you, they make sense to your audience. I love some of these guys, and maybe it’s my career talking to non-Christians…..but they have a wooden ear on this one. That’s as much reduction as the Four Spiritual Laws. Talk about someone in the TR camp needing to shout “Where’s the rest of the stuff you gotta understand?”

Olson links a 2003 piece on Teresa’s Dark Night.

Piper takes 4 minutes to demonstrate that there is no contextualization needed to communicate the Gospel.

The Taliban have promised to free the 19 Korean hostages if all missionary work ends. Korea has agreed.

The review says…

He uses Bible verses that are clearly written to Christians but does not make that distinction. This is true not only in the words of John 3:16 (does God love everybody in the world without exception or everybody in the world without distinction?) but in other passages as well. This kind of talk can be dangerous—it can have consequences.

1. John 3:16 is “clearly written to Christians?” What particularly authoritative evidence is there for that claim?

2. Shouldn’t the claim that a passage of scripture about the love of God doesn’t apply to all people be made with some awareness that, with the exception of some dedicated “L”-loving Calvinists, most Christians would the claim outrageous?

3. This is precisely what bugs me about the “L.” “Oh Love of God, so vast and free. Limited for me….” Everybody sing. Is God more praiseworthy for being efficient?

It’s really strange to read that story about resolution, or the lack thereof. Interestingly, whenever I hear the unresolved four-note “theme” for Intel, I always have to resolve it by whistling my own four-note resolution. Yet my own life is so unresolved its not even funny.

A powerful and moving post from Brant Hansen on real-life stories without resolution:

We like resolution. But we don’t live in resolution-time. Forgive me for ever giving the impression otherwise, that I believe myself fully resolved, fully arrived, somehow finished. The story isn’t over.

And I’ve always loved the story about (as I heard it) the young Mozart with which Hansen opens his post.

I find it hard to believe that Christ won’t say “well done, my good and faithful servant” to her.

But Phillip, don’t you realize that she was a Roman Catholic?

jn jn jn jn jn jn jn jn…...

OK, I”m back from dropping off our oldest son at Wheaton College to begin his freshman year. Wow! What a great place to be, and he is so in his element, that the sadness at the separation was mostly satisfying. Hard to be proud and sad at the same time….

Also, a Tornado like storm leaving tree wreckage and boasting 70 mph winds erupted out of clear blue skies just as we prepared to unpack his stuff. Had all the parents and students huddled in dorm basement. Then the fire alarm went off causing us all to scramble for outside. (What good is huddling in a basement to be protected from a tornado when the building is going to burn down?—and oh yeah, I believe in hell, but that’s another discussion that will necessitate my going into detail about Flooded Roads and traffic jams leaving Chicago after the storm dumped 10 inches of rain)

Anyway, the College President always has a good message. He told us that parents should stop calling these freshmen “children” or “kids”. But, they are not adults either, so he calls them “apprentice-adults”.

Someone also stressed that this is a time when they begin their dance with God. Some will waltz toe to toe, others will wrestle, but as parents our job has changed, not ended. We dare not be intrusive or we’ll spoil the dance. But we do still have a job to do for them.

Anyway, that’s where I’ve been the past week, although I have managed to read what’s going on in here, I didn’t have time to post anything….

If you enjoyed my silly title, you might also enjoy following the thread of the titular oneupsmanship that ensued…

Shea I appreciated the conversation you linked, especially the title. My objection is scientific not spiritual. The M-B would make sense if traits were dichotomous, but they don’t seem to be – people tend to differ from each other by degree not by category. The MBTI methodology would make sense if responses tended to be bimodal (you either score very high or very low, not often in the middle) but people tend to score near the middle with an artificial cut-point dividing the types.
I think good discussion can come from the Five Factor model of personality, currently the gold standard. You can take a pretty empirically solid version here for free.

Randy, you appear to have /.ed the “OfficeHumour.co.uk” site from which that picture came (which I therefore haven’t got to see). I hope you’re sorry. (sw)

Does He not love some because He doesn’t save them (exception)? Or does He love them all, but not in a salvific way (distinction)?

OK, I’ll bite. I read Don Carson’s Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God a few years back, and he almost managed to convince me that it makes sense to say that “God loves all people, but not necessarily in a salvific way”. But as things stand right now, this doesn’t really make a great deal of sense: “I love you, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to subject you to an eternity of infinite pain and torment for your sins”.

I think the official Lutheran response to your dichotomy, though, is not universalism, but to start muttering darkly about the perils of applying logic to such questions. (jn)

Oh, and Shea, I can sympathise with the four reasons you gave for s{c|k}epticism about climate change, but here are just some thoughts in response: More »« Less

In line with what Tom just posted and what I and others have said before:

You are skeptical?  That’s fine (and probably healthy if not overdone).  But please, not for these reasons:

1.    Global climate change is associated with democrats and liberals.

2.    Rush Limbaugh said it wasn’t true.

3.    Scientists aren’t to be trusted because they also believe in evolution.

4.    God won’t allow us to destroy ourselves. (maybe that’s technically true.  But that doesn’t mean He wouldn’t allow us to make it really, really unpleasant for ourselves for the next 8000 years.)

5.    The earth is remarkably created and self healing. (so is a human being.  That doesn’t mean you can’t kill it)

6.     The Rapture will happen before we can seriously affect the planet.

Kletos, I agree with your rejection of Jungian typology.  Yet our church has actually profited from discussions of the MBTI.  I think it’s the post-test talk about our differences and not the test itself that has been profitable.  Here’s a post where we indulged in some silliness about it.  The interesting stuff is in the comments.

Why are many skeptical about global warming? Here’s a cynical answer, but I think it’s true: they see global warming as a “liberal” issue and don’t want to ruin their conservative credentials.

Any and all references to Jungian typology shall be met with my scorn. I am a M-B skeptic/sceptic. The peer-reviewed literature has not been kind to that instrument.

Ochuk: Can’t see the post (perhaps those who can have it cached?). As I understand it, the exception/distinction question is part of the logic leading to Limited Atonement. If we accept that God is Sovereign and even can save whom He wills, then what are we to make of the two apparent truths that (1) God loves the world and (2) some people go to hell? Does He not love some because He doesn’t save them (exception)? Or does He love them all, but not in a salvific way (distinction)?

Michael: Perhaps I’m strange, but I find the news about Mother Teresa strangely comforting. Here’s a woman who struggled like I’ve struggled, and who remained faithful like I haven’t remained faithful, acting in what I can only describe as faith. Based on my reading of scripture, I find it hard to believe that Christ won’t say “well done, my good and faithful servant” to her.

On Global Warming: I’m burying this one.

More »« Less

John believes in Global Warming and Infernal Cooling.

Sorry. I had to.

I’m offended.

Oh, no. I’m sorry. It reminds me of the time the church office secretary put a picture of a victorious boxer standing over his vanquished opponent as the graphic for church elections in the Sunday bulletin.

Randy, I’m offended.

You can’t post pictures of those girly drinks in a real bar like this. What is that in the upper right? A Cosmo?

Randy, no, not much of a context. He is reviewing a Max Lucado book that “unpacks” the verse and raised the point that it cannot be applied to both believers and unbelievers in the same way (?). That aside, I don’t see how this is meaningful unless you are talking about different levels of love (common grace/saving grace). The problem is…the verse, if exegeted properly doesn’t contain any levels of love in the text! But even if there is, how is Lucado making an error? The distinction is that those who believe are saved and those who don’t are condemned. Yet the only begotten son is still given. So…?

Whew! So glad for another subject. Couldn’t stand the weather.

Challies asks (when reflecting on John 3:16) “Does God love everybody in the world without exception or everybody in the world without distinction?” Now I am more than willing to be called dumb because of this, but what meaningful difference is there here? It seems to me, in the end, every one in the world is loved so why split hares?

It looks to me like Challies’s version of “each and every”, a locution that is as annoying to me as it is ubiquitous. He may denying levels of love, but probably not, unless he is responding to someone who posited such levels of love. Is there any context?

Or perhaps, looking at his wording, he is supporting limits on God’s love and levels of love. I know who Challies is, but I have read very little of his blog. (I thought he was off the air these days.) I don’t know what his position is.

See, I’m the dumb one.

One: Challies asks (when reflecting on John 3:16) “Does God love everybody in the world without exception or everybody in the world without distinction?” Now I am more than willing to be called dumb because of this, but what meaningful difference is there here? It seems to me, in the end, every one in the world is loved so why split hares?

Two: I may have encountered a spam bot that deletes posts, but I am not sure. Some people can see this post. Others can’t Can you? Let me know (email is in the sidebar).

Bill: ”...just as we accept the general consensus that smoking is bad for you and the earth is round.” Interesting choices of scientific consenses. No phlogiston, N-rays, or polywater? I keed!

Reasons? ENFPs don’t need no stinkin’ reasons!

See what happened? I said I would quit.

Randy, that there are different views passionately held isn’t important. What matters is investigating the claims and the evidence for and against them. This notion that a layperson can’t come to a reasonable conclusion because they’re not an expert in complex mathematics and argumentation just won’t wash. I don’t have to read Kepler and Newton in Latin and be able to do orbital mechanical calculations to be reasonably sure that the Earth and other planets rotate around the Sun. If I agree with the consensus about heliocentrism, it doesn’t mean that I’m in the thrall of a scientific priesthood. If we can’t degauss some of the political charge that has attached to climate change, we’re never going to give all of the evidence a hearing, nor separate inferences to the best explanation from blind dogmatism. This should not be about persuasion by sheer force of political will.

You don’t know any more about this subject than I do. And I don’t know any more than you. We are both ignorant fools.

You presume much, but you may be right. Nevertheless, even if you are a principal investigator in this area and had the expertise that we should be listening to, I would still object to what you’ve just said, for it is just pissing in the pool so that no one can swim in it. It doesn’t have to be toxic. This is unilaterally cutting off reasoned discussion, legitimate intellectual curiosity and ethical deliberation. I’m not offended that you think me a fool; I’m offended that you do not suffer fools to inquire and seek wisdom. I’m offended that you would treat us fools spitefully rather than teach us. For starters, you could identify one of the 26 points in the New Scientist article and give specific reasons why you think it’s flawed or incorrect.

I’d rather talk about something we understand, anyway.

The point I’ve been trying to make in the last couple of posts is that the principle of reasoning that I’m hearing from you and Shea doesn’t allow us the possibility to be reasonably sure about anything because you are arguing on pyrrhonic principles. I would like to have reasons to reject the current consensus regarding climate change. That the hypotheses are arbitrary or subjective just isn’t compelling. I don’t believe in the social constructivist account of science (as a regulative principle), and I don’t think anyone who thinks theology can be truth-disclosing would want to adopt that outlook.

If climatology is no more reasonable that cryptozoology, then there’s no meaningful difference between the knowledge contained in the pages of the North American BioFortean Review or the Journal of Parapsychology and New Scientist, Nature and Scientific American.

Carl Olson has an excellent piece on Mother Teresa. No climate change opinions expressed.

Excellent words on theological refining from Devon Hudson.

I don’t see why anyone would have to account for general skepticism at this point toward what is a short-term scientific theory still in the throes of contention and awash in political and rhetorical factors. Why are some people generally attracted to catastrophic or conspiratorial scenarios? Who knows?

I’m a teetotaler, and I feel very guilty for posting this. If it is inappropriate, I will ask the moderator to expunge it forever.

You can click on it for the larger version.

• a temperamental inclination to distrust hysterical people
• resistance to counterfeit eschatologies
• a dislike of bullying tactics employed against dissenters
• follow the money

Serious question. I promise.

To the climate change skeptics: Why are you skeptical? Obviously, those who think it is happening have a tendency to trust the general consensus of the scientific community, just as we accept the general consensus that smoking is bad for you and the earth is round. So why don’t you? Is it a general distrust of researchers? Is there some theological basis for your belief? I’m all for holding opinions but I’m interested in what informs them. Let’s face it; to latch onto a minority dissenting viewpoint usually means you have a predisposition to believe them. I’m curious.

What I do agree with you on is that neither of us has any specialist knowledge on this subject, so it’s probably best to call it quits and agree to differ.

John, I accept the call to quit and I agree to differ with you. No love lost, my brother. Climate change theology is not a fundamental, is it?

Except, I’ll give one final dig, since you did, and you can give one more and I will not, if you please. There are peer-reviewed scientific journal articles refuting the contentions of global-warmism, too, not just popular accounts. Not all scientists agree with you. Some agree with me.

No more on global warming from me until the next breakout, I promise.

Randy: as you point out, we have no grounds for ever reaching agreement on this. If I point to the consensus in published science, well, that just shows that the way science works is totally broken. If I point to the way that consensus is reported in popular-level accounts, well, here’s another bunch of websites that argue for the opposite. And if some guy is arguing about it on a website and in an op-ed column, then you’ve still got a debate, so no need to do anything whatsoever yet.

What I do agree with you on is that neither of us has any specialist knowledge on this subject, so it’s probably best to call it quits and agree to differ. At least till I post my next sea-ice update on Thursday. (jn)

Shea: Is that the Great Global Warming Swindle? (Can’t access videos on this PC.) A couple of responses to it here and here. From what I understand of that film, most of the arguments it raises are addressed in those New Scientist links.

I fixed the link to this video.  Have you seen this?

1. Do you seriously think that the “salesmen” are on the consensus side of this equation? That there are no “salesmen” driving the “scepticism” side of the argument?

2. Do you take the same approach when it’s a fire-fighter telling you you have to leave the house RIGHT NOW, or a doctor telling you you have to go for an operation RIGHT NOW?

John, it’s a parable. Surely you know the genre.

There are salesmen on both sides, absolutely guaranteed. I may be dumb, but I’m not stupid.

If the firefighter is yelling and I don’t smell smoke, I might check his bona fides. Maybe he wants me to leave so he can rob my house. And many people have had unnecessary surgery to fill the surgeon’s pocket. Your argument doesn’t convince me.

Anyway, it’s a parable. It’s not my argument.

You want laymans’ guides to climate stuff? There are plenty on both sides. Which, as I said, proves that the debate is not over, no matter how much the debaters on one side want it to be.

It is a very curious thing to me how global-warmists are continually saying the debate is over. It isn’t over until both sides say it is. You can quit debating whenever you want, but you haven’t won the argument until the debate is over. If you quit debating, you’re just a quitter, not a debater. You may be totally convinced, and good for you, but you only won the debate with yourself.

Peer-reviewed journal articles have propounded all sorts of nonsense. Since this is a theological establishment, I didn’t even need to say that.

Obviously, what you think about climate change has a great deal to do with whom you trust on the subject. I’m not asking you to trust me. Please, don’t ask me to trust you. You don’t know any more about this subject than I do. And I don’t know any more than you. We are both ignorant fools. I’d rather talk about something we understand, anyway.

Just know, the debate is not over. Let’s not damage (“bankrupt” was too strong, a feeble and wrong-headed attempt to use inflammatory language) our economy to fix something that may not be broken very much.

I hate buying a new battery, only to find out it was the alternator.

Shea: New Scientist has a good guide to 26 climate-change myths, including the specific point about historical CO₂ rises lagging behind temperature rises rather than vice versa. It also deals with the “our contributions are too piddling to make a difference” point raised by Randy.

Randy:

When the salesman says I have to make a decision RIGHT NOW, I know what decision to make.

Two responses:

1. Do you seriously think that the “salesmen” are on the consensus side of this equation? That there are no “salesmen” driving the “scepticism” side of the argument?

2. Do you take the same approach when it’s a fire-fighter telling you you have to leave the house RIGHT NOW, or a doctor telling you you have to go for an operation RIGHT NOW?

Who’s asking us to bankrupt the nation to fix climate change?   And what should we be willing to bankrupt the nation for? (that’s a not so subtle reference to what we are spending on the “war on terror”)

Greenhouse gases have the potential to introduce positive, regenerative feedback into the climactic system. Our sister planet, Venus, which acquired its present condition through natural processes alone, gives us good reason to be cautious.

As for the connection between CO₂ and temperature, New Scientist published a layman’s guide to these issues. See this one and this one, which I think address your question.

My point in substituting conciliar wrestling with the essentials of the faith for peer-reviewed scientific literature is to show that skepticism for the outcomes of such efforts should be tempered by strong evidence (in the former, biblical; in the latter, empirical) rather than anecdotes. If you think it’s reasonable to be so dismissive of peer-reviewed research conducted in an adversarial system, then by what standard would you reasonably trust any collective human effort to understand and express the truth about something? Such skepticism takes you to a fideistic either-or: to be reasonable either I have to have absolute certainty or I must doubt. That’s unbearable, so one “leaps” over sound reasoning and good inferences to an irrational dogmatism. I’m not saying you’ve done that, but the easy dismissal of the checks and balances afforded by a peer-reviewed literature backs you into a corner you may not want to be in. I see the principle of the plurality of elders in church governance working in much the same way. It is no guarantee that a council of elders or bishops will arrive at the best or right judgment every time, but if their wisdom is located somewhere above the level of “pooled ignorance,” then given time for deliberation and due consideration of the relevant issues, they will often arrive at a sound judgment. New information and later developments may give occasion for reconsideration.

Update: And I’ve seen several posts that mention “universal agreement.” That’s skepticism, whether used in a positive or negative sense. Scientific matters, from the shape of the earth to the arrangement of the solar system to the constancy of the speed of light to climate change, are a matter of consensus. There are degrees of consensus and those with near universal consensus are, not surprisingly, rather quiet on the research front. Even if the consensus hypothesis right now is that human activity is partly responsible for current climate change, additional research to confirm that hypothesis could in fact undermine it. The data may not be consistent and it may be inconsistent enough to falsify the hypothesis. The problem is that if this is a matter of life and death, how much consistent data is enough to convince the skeptics that it is worth the economic risk to take actions to reduce our contribution to climate change? If the crude model of the amplifier applies to the climate (regenerative feedback), then at what point is it too late to pull back the microphone to prevent bursting our eardrums?

John, it’s skepticism not scepticism.  Don’t you have spell checkers in England? :)

I was persuaded by certain sections of the media that there was a lack of scientific consensus regarding climate change. In fact, that is incorrect: the scientific consensus (in terms of published, peer-reviewed research) is clear and overwhelming.

John, I don’t doubt the climate is changing. We’ve had several ice ages, so it would be very surprising indeed if we were now at a steady state with our temperature. (At least four ice ages is pretty good for a planet only 6000 years old, huh?)

And I don’t doubt it’s getting warmer. It has to be either getting warmer or getting colder. Those are the only two choices.

What scientists are NOT in agreement about is the rate of change, the persistence of change, and the cause of change. The only people who claim universal agreement are the ones who have a vested interest in cutting off the debate. They have to say it an awful lot, if the debate is really over. The other side of the debate doesn’t think it’s over.

My own view is that we are experiencing natural variations in temperature. Our piddly bit of carbon dioxide doesn’t make a whole lot of difference one way or another. The oceans might rise in time, but I think it will happen slowly enough that we will adjust without undue expense. These are my views and I could be wrong. At least we don’t have to bankrupt a nation to fix anything this way.

I don’t begrudge you your views. I can hang with you pretty well, unless you want to spend a whole bunch of my money. If you want a hobby like that, it’s pretty harmless. I have some stupid hobbies, too. And I’m not an enviroslob. I don’t throw my Burger King wrappers out of the car on the highway. I don’t put a lot of chemicals on my lawn. I try to minimize my use of styrofoam cups. I just think most of the global warming stuff is overblown. When the salesman says I have to make a decision RIGHT NOW, I know what decision to make.

I’m glad we can still have fellowship even though we disagree about this matter. I would even take communion alongside you.

Dagnabit, what makes me mad is that they can’t even predict what the weather will be next week with any kind of accuracy. The debate isn’t even over on that. I could plan my golfing vacations a lot better if they could. Let’s work on that one.

Disclaimer: I are a scientist, but I work for a living.

You lost me, Joel.  What’s that symbol of the faith/plurality of bishops stuff?

It sounds like you’ve done this all before, but here’s why I’m still skeptical.  Let me admit up front that I’m totally unqualified to have an opinion on this matter, but I’m guessing everyone else in the room is as well, with apologies to any present climatologists.

I pastor a church next to the University of Illinois, reputed to be the best engineering school in the world.  You should hear the Ph.D.s in my church talk about what a crock they feel peer-reviewed journals to be.  It’s not a vast conspiracy, it’s just a good ol’ boys club protecting their turf and exalting their sycophants. 

I’m sure someone will email me the link that refutes it all, but I still haven’t read the refutation of the argument made by that documentary aired last year on the BBC.  As I understand it the argument goes something like this.

Yes, there is a link between CO2 and global warming, but they’ve got the link the wrong way round.  Global warming leads to an increase in CO2.  Yes CO2 levels have now spiked, but that isn’t cause for panic unless CO2 warms the earth rather than a warm earth producing more CO2.  And wasn’t that an MIT climatologist making this argument?

symbol of the faith reached through the plurality of bishops (elders), refuting errors

groans and makes vulgar gesture (with smiley)

/jn

Skepticism is the easiest weapon to wield and for that reason just as easy to disrespect its destructive power.

Shea: I think I know what you’re getting at. Some people are sceptical about climate change research because they think the consensus exists amongst a closed-shop of climatologists, with any dissidents frozen out (geddit?!?), denied funds and access to the relevant journals etc. Others because they are basically sceptical about the nature of the scientific enterprise. That’s fine – well, actually it’s not fine, but that’s not an argument I’m inclined to have right now – it’s just not me.

“published peer-reviewed research”

groans and makes vulgar gesture (with smiley)

Phillip, I saw your smileys.  I just thought with the political comment to John combined with the rest you were really on a roll.  Actually, I really meant to put my own smiley after my little comment and didn’t.  I didn’t mean it to be so serious.

I haven’t been able to get on the thinklings site for two days.  Is anyone else getting on?  I’m wondering if it’s a DNS thing (or if I’m even using the term DNS correctly).

The reason it matters is I’m in the middle of about five chess games over there and I’m leaving them hanging. 

Anybody else in here in the thinklings chess club?  Let me know and we’ll play a game. 

If you want to join, here’s your invitation.

EDIT: I’m sure you’ll be happy to know that I’m representing the BHT well.  I’m currently undefeated.  If you want to sponsor me, I’ll wear a picture of Van Til on my shirt with your company’s name on the back while I’m playing.

Randy: I don’t want to open this out into another discussion about climate change (and certainly not into the merits of the invasion of Iraq), but it may be worth clarifying the precise nature of my U-turn on climate change.

I was persuaded by certain sections of the media that there was a lack of scientific consensus regarding climate change. In fact, that is incorrect: the scientific consensus (in terms of published, peer-reviewed research) is clear and overwhelming.

Now, it is perfectly conceivable that the scientific consensus is wrong, and if you want to believe that then you’re free to do so. But what persuaded me to be sceptical for a time was the argument that significant divisions exist among climatologists on this issue, and that is simply not the case.

How’s that for an off-topic post?  I’m just trolling for traffic here.  I just wrote a post on my blog of thoughts from my recent repeated readings in Job 38-42.

This is particularly the case with topics such as Iraq and climate change, where I’ve undergone significant shifts of opinion from views that I am now embarrassed ever to have held (respectively: pro-invasion, inclined towards scepticism).

John, sorry to hear that you drank the Kool-Aid. Maybe if you spit it out before you swallow, you’ll still be ok. Maybe you’ll think again.

The SBC Outpost’s Rules seem vaguely familiar…

Michael, watch out you were linked at SBC Outpost today.(semi JN)