Quote:
Originally Posted by awareness
I just don't buy the Solomon references, metaphor, whatever. I think it's forcing something onto scripture.
Like the scripture writers even knew anything at all about climate or weather, for that matter. Back then they attributed things they didn't understand to supernatural causes. A type of animism.
And that's what I think you are doing by forcing Solomon into the climate debate.
|
How about Igzy's point? If climate change is due to burning of fossil fuel then why did God provide it? Why is it a "sin" to use a gift given to us by God?
This is the issue that Igzy and Ohio basically have with all the hoopla over climate change. Since they believe that fossil fuel is a gift from God to us, it is difficult to convince them that burning it is a sin.
My point is that the sin is the sin committed by Solomon. I am not forcing anything onto the Bible to say that Solomon sinned. Nor am I forcing anything to say that the Bible instructed him not to go to Egypt for horses or Lebanon for cedars, but rather that his land was a rich land. If that is true, and it is certainly what the Bible says clearly for all to read, how can you justify that unless you are including all the oil in the Middle East as part of the equation? If you agree that the oil is part of the equation then what good is the oil without the industrial revolution?