Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Christians Launch Campaign against Global Warming Hype

From The Christian Post

WASHINGTON – While it may seem like everyone believes in global warming and the impending catastrophe it will bring, a group of conservative Christians countered that message Thursday by launching a national campaign to gather one million signatures for a statement that says Christians must not believe in all the hype about global warming.

Rest of story here

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just wondering what would happen if we put this much effort in to reaching the lost?




36 comments:

Nohm said...

I don't even understand what they plan on doing with these signatures.

"Hi. I, and a whole bunch of people who haven't done any work to determine whether or not the earth is warming, have signed this because we want our voices known."

I don't even have to think, "yes, the earth is warming" to think that such a list of signatures doesn't serve a point, except to allow the people who signed it think that they are doing something by not doing anything.

Slacktivism, in other words.

I mean, this isn't even a list of conservative christian earth scientists or anything... just a list of people unrelated to the science.

On another note, Wayne, since you wrote: "Just wondering what would happen if we put this much effort in to reaching the lost?"

So, Wayne, I'm one of the lost. I'm here. What would you do to reach me? I'm open to anything, and I gain nothing by saying, "ha, I'm still lost!"

Joe A. said...

I think this blog, as well as hif other, have been attempts at outreach for quite some time.

Nohm said...

Hi Joe,

What's his other blog?

Also, what in particular do you see here as outreach to the lost?

And, to clarify, by "lost" do you mean backslidden Christians, Christians-who-aren't-Real-True-Christians, non-believers, apatheists, or... ?

I guess, for myself, I tend to assume that "the lost" refers to non-believers, but Wayne might mean it differently.

Ike said...

God will take over and God will get involved in global warming. God will turn up the heat. God will destroy the rain forests. God will slaughter the plants and the animals. And as I've been saying to you all along, if you think we're messing up this world, wait till you see what He does to it. And not only will their source of life be taken, but their god will be destroyed for their god is the creation.

"Johnny Mac"

Nohm said...

Ike, I honestly have no idea what you mean, especially with this:

"And not only will their source of life be taken, but their god will be destroyed for their god is the creation."

Who is "they" in this part?

Ike said...

The "gentle" Jesus is going to judge this world....you can read about it in the book of Revelation.

Nohm said...

Ike, are you a PMD'er?

Also, I don't think I understood your answer, if that was an answer to my question.

Again, who is "they" in the part of your statement that I quoted above?

This is not a "gotcha"; I honestly don't know who you're referring to.

Wayne Dawg said...

Hi Nohm,

My other blog is www.hfots.blogspot.com (His Feet on the Street)

"His Feet on the Street" (HFOTS) is an evangelism team that I, through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, started earlier this year.

We go out to car shows, festivals, parks, etc. to witness the gospel of Jesus Christ.

A couple weeks ago we were at the Pride Fest in Atlanta.

HFOTS is an evangelism blog that I keep up to post witnessing stories, evangelism tips, etc.

Now about your question of outreach on this blog -

Outreach can mean different things to different churches or organizations.

Outreach to me (as a Christian) is reaching out to people to present the full gospel.

Joe is right, from time to time I do 'do' a little outreach on this blog.

This blog was never intended to be a strickly one sided conservative Christian blog.

This blog is open for anyone to post their views on anything as long as God wasn't blasphemed.

HFOTS was created to post stories from witnessing encouters and to encourage new evangelists when sharing their faith.

Nohm, I have witnessed to you on this blog...others have witnessed to you on this blog.

When the gospel was presented to you, you were witnessed to.

You participated in this post:

http://dawgonthelawn.blogspot.com/2009/10/what-must-i-do-to-be-saved.html

The full gospel was presented....if you read it, you were witnessed to. That was my outreach to you and other non-believers.

Nohm said...

Hi Wayne,

Thanks for the explanations.

I guess that I didn't get the answer I was hoping for with my question.

Here's what I, myself, am looking for:

I would love to see evangelism that is actually and intentionally created/designed for non-believers. That is, evangelism that actually deals with the issues that non-believers have with faith, religion, and so on.

I have never seen this kind of evangelism, even when I was an evangelist myself, and I would love to experience it. Maybe it would only be for the fascination, or maybe because I'm wrong, there is a God, and it's the evangelism techniques that have been turning me away from Him.

I don't know.

I just know that I would be interested in seeing it.

So, that's where I'm coming from.

Ike said...

Wayne....would you consider posting this for not only Nohm but all your readership?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVR1gjR7Tpg

Nohm said...

Hi Ike,

Again, that's a message that is not directed at non-believers.

Maybe Paul wants it to be directed at non-believers, and maybe he's directing it to non-believers, but at no point does it deal with any of the reasons why non-believers are non-believers.

In short, to me, it's no different at all from any of the Islamic videos I've seen; they assume that the audience is working with the same axioms as the speaker.

But, if you're really trying to reach non-believers, you have to speak to *their* axioms.

And these videos don't speak to those axioms; this video assumes that the audience agrees in the divinity of the Bible, the divinity of Jesus, the existence of God, the existence of sin, and so on.

Again, I don't think that anyone is obligated to evangelize to non-believers; it's just that I would really like to see it.

Ike said...

Nohm,

You have to first understand that a non-believer is by nature a sinner. One does not tell a lie and then he is a sinner....he lies because that's his nature. On top of that....a non-believer hates God. Now I know you are going to disagree with that....but it is true. He may not "hate" the god of his imagination....but he hates the God of the Bible. Now....how do you take someone like that and just use logic or talk to them about the existence of God??

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Only God can raise that dead sinner to life....and He does it by the preaching of the Gospel and by the power of the Holy Spirit.

I love brother Wayne....I love that he has a burden to evangelize. Wayne knows full well that he will not convince anybody to become a christian.....what he does know is that if he is faithful in preaching the Gospel......some of them are going to come out! Some will be saved by the power of God....only God can raise a "dead" sinner to life. If you look at what you are saying....it would be like going to the cemetary and trying to lead all the dead people to do jumping jacks. If they are dead....there dead.

Nohm said...

Ike,

I don't think you understood my request, so I'll wait to see if someone else does.

In other words, you're arguing against a different point than the one that I made.

Having said that, I find it fascinating when people try to tell me how I think, when they couldn't be further from the truth.

"a non-believer [...] hates the God of the Bible"

Oh, I do? Well, that's news. It appears that your telepathic powers are waning. ;-)

Ike said...

Nohm...I think you missed my point about why your thought on evangelism won't work.

Also...God's Word divides people in "two" groups:

Exodus 20:5-6--"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to [idols], nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." Humanity is divided into two groups: those who hate God (v. 5) and those who love Him (v. 6).

Nohm said...

Hi Ike,

I *do* understand your point.

I just don't think, with all due respect (and I don't mean anything negative about this), that you understand my point.

It's not about whether or not the style of evangelism that I'm talking about would work, since I argue that the current style, such as shown in the video, most definitely does not work on non-believers because it in no way deals with the reasons why people are non-believers.

I wasn't even talking about "us[ing] logic or talk to them about the existence of God", necessarily. I'm not talking about convincing anyone. I'm talking about having a dialogue where you're not talking past the person.

I think that part of the reason why you, specifically, have trouble with understanding my point because you have a very strange idea of the point of view of a non-believer.

In the verses that you listed (Exodus 20:5-6), note that He does not say that those are the only two groups of people. He simply says, "this is what will happen to people who hate Me, and this is what will happen to people who love Me". He doesn't say anything to people who are indifferent to Him, nor does He say that those people do not exist. I argue that you are reading that last part into the scriptures, when it's not actually stated by God.

Nohm said...

Correction:

"He doesn't say anything to people who are indifferent to Him"

should instead be:

"He doesn't say anything about people who are indifferent to Him"

Nohm said...

Ack, another correction:

When I said in the final sentence: "I argue that you are reading that last part into the scriptures,"

By "that last part" I mean "these are the only two types of people in the world."

It would be like if I said, "I think people who like the color black are mopey goths who annoy me, and people who like the color white are people who are clean, polite, and generous."

Am I saying that people wear only black or white, and no other colors?

In short, is my comment a dichotomy, or is it something that you are reading into it?

Nohm said...

Hi Ike,

One more question: if you believe that Wayne cannot convince anyone to become a Christian, then why should any evangelist even waste their time with something like "The good person test"? Why not preach only the Law and Gospel, ignoring anything else?

Wayne Dawg said...

Hi Nohm and Ike,

I am only able to respond right now in the morning time (EST) and will be for a few days.

Nohm,

I know you directed the last question to Ike, but I want to respond.

No Christian, evangelist or otherwise, can 'convince' any non-believer to become a Christian.

This is a supernatural work of God alone.

The good person test on the side of the blog is a very basic and simple presentation of Law and gospel.

God can, and will, and has used simple gospel tracts to convert a non-believer.

Ike was right on when he said that a non-believer hates God.

Before October 29th, 1994 I would have disagreed very much with that statement.

I would have said, "I don't hate God...not really sure that there is a God the way that the Bible paints a God; but I don't hate what I don't think is really there."

But that all changed the night God saved me.

I was a hater of God through my lifestyle, my mouth, my deeds, my eyes, etc.

As for methods of evangelism...you said:

"I wasn't even talking about "us[ing] logic or talk to them about the existence of God", necessarily. I'm not talking about convincing anyone. I'm talking about having a dialogue where you're not talking past the person."

God has to draw the person to Christ. Without this drawing the conversation may seem to go past the non-believer in the conversation.

So I don't know that any other 'kind' of dialogue would be beneficial other than Law and Gospel.

Ike said it best when he was referencing Romans chapter 10;

"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Only God can raise that dead sinner to life....and He does it by the preaching of the Gospel and by the power of the Holy Spirit."

This is the only way.

Dorci said...

Nohm, no one knows your "axioms," or what any other person who does not believe in Christ needs to hear. But God does. Only He knows your heart. And that is why Wayne and many others, who love God and love people, keep telling the people the truth. Because the Holy Spirit will "lob truth missles," as my pastor puts it, over whatever type of wall a person has put up against God, the truth, whatever the case may be. The evangelist's job is to speak the truth, the Holy Spirit's job is to convict and to save.

Steve Martin said...

The hubris of man (thinking that he controls the weather)knows no bounds.

The earth is now cooling.

So...wouldn't it make sense to DO things to cause warming?

What a joke.

The devil muct be laughing all the way to Al Gore's bank.

Joe A. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe A. said...

The evangelism you are looking for, which just sounds like apologetics, is definitely out there. You aren't looking very hard for it.

Anyway, interesting global warming chit-chat here. The site is a little funky: http://algorelied.com/?p=3177

"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong."
- Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change

Nohm said...

Joe A,

I would argue that there is very little that I look for harder.

If you have a suggestion of a particular one, please let me know.

I have researched many apologetics; my point is that apologetics, in my experience, are intended for a Christian audience because (and I apologize for constantly hammering on this) they don't speak to the reasons why non-believers are non-believers.

THAT'S what I'm looking for.

Not "here's why you current believers are right", which is what I've experienced in apologetics, but "here are the counter-arguments to the arguments of non-believers".

I'm not saying that they don't exist, but I haven't found much of them at all. If you know of any that you think would be persuasive, please let me know.

Joe A. said...

I thought Reasonable Faith, 3rd edition, by William Lane Craig, was a good read, although I'm not so sure it fits your criteria. Hm. Actually, I think infidels.org reviews some apologetics books and gives occasional recommendations. I read their lengthy review of Ravi Zacharias' book, Can Man Live Without God, in which the review's author recommended a book or two on the end. I found myself agreeing with it on points simply because Ravi uses a lot of stories and analogies which kind of annoys me. Sorry if that's a bit vague.

I know what you're saying, though. I hear atheists or other nonbelievers say things or argue in certain ways sometimes that do not make sense from my perspective, or seem to express a false understanding of a certain philosophical or religious idea from the Christian side, but I am sure it goes both ways in that regard.

It's somewhat difficult to find writings like your description, though. It'd almost have to be from someone who agrees and believes in all of the Christian/theistic arguments or beliefs yet rejects them on other grounds, possibly emotionally or volitionally based.

Nohm said...

Hi Joe A,

I don't think that I would need writings from Christians who reject their beliefs.

They could completely disagree with me on all of my opinions.

I'd just like to see something which shows that they've researched our reasons for being non-believers, they've understood our reasons (again, they can completely disagree with every single reason... I just ask that they *understand*), and then make arguments designed to speak to those reasons.

Does that make more sense?

In short: I have zero problem with someone thinking that my opinions are completely wrong, as long as they try to understand my opinions.

As examples which are the opposite of understanding my opinions:

Telling me that...

I hate God.
I believe that nothing created everything.
I believe that the universe happened by accident/chance.
I think that cats should give birth to dogs.
I believe in God, but I deny Him due to my love of sin.

And so on.

Even if any of these were true, I don't see them as true, so presenting them to me is dispersuasive.

Nohm said...

Also, I'll check out the reccomendations at infidels.org... it has been a little while since I've been to that site, so they might have something new.

Nohm said...

Lastly,

Please correct me if I ever present something that I claim to be your point of view, or a common Christian point of view, if I'm wrong.

I have no problems being corrected.

Dorci said...

The only thing I would say to help you understand where apologetists are coming from in their discussions, is to remember that at one time they, too, were unbelievers. They weren't born saved and believing in God. So they understand the unbelievers' perspective, because it was also their perspective, and my perspective.

I was not a Christian for the first 25 years of my life and I know why I wasn't, and when you really get right down to brass tacks, it didn't have anything specifically to do with my personal situations, my personality, my upbringing, none of that. What it came down to is really what it comes down for everyone, we are born with a natural leaning toward sin, and sin is the polar opposite of God. It takes the drawing of the Holy Spirit to bring us to a place where we see that we are a sinner, and that that sin needs to be paid for, by us or by Jesus. Regardless of anything else, when we come to that realization and understand that our sin is wrong and that it causes us to be in opposition to a holy God, and we accept Jesus' payment, then we'll be saved. Really, no other reasons matter, because there will always be another reason, another argument, another justification.

The matter is our sin, and our need for a Savior.

Nohm said...

Hi Dorci,

"The only thing I would say to help you understand where apologetists are coming from in their discussions,"

For the record, I feel that I have a good idea of where they're coming from. I used to use apologetics when I was a Christian, and I read a lot of their books.

The issue I have is not with understanding them, it's that I don't think that they understand me, or most non-believers. I say this because they don't address our actual reasons for being non-believers. Books like "The Case For Christ" are a perfect example of this; it's presented as him looking for answers to "skeptics" questions, when neither myself nor the vast majority of non-believers I know would be asking those particular questions; we have a different list of questions that we find important.

"is to remember that at one time they, too, were unbelievers. They weren't born saved and believing in God."

I agree with this for some people. Some writers were raised in Christian households, but I know of many who claim that they were once atheists (such as Lee Strobel).

Of course, it's impossible for me to say that they weren't "True Atheists", since I don't know their inner thoughts. It is my opinion, though, that if they were non-believers (and I don't have much problem accepting that claim) that they never really thought much as to WHY they were non-believers.

That's the reaction I get from reading their writings.

"So they understand the unbelievers' perspective, because it was also their perspective, and my perspective. "

Well, as I just explained above, it's my experience that these people, including yourself, seem not to have thought much, at the time you were a non-believer, why you were a non-believer. Again, I don't know your inner thoughts, so I can't say if you did or not. I base this on the kinds of questions that you, and people like Lee Strobel or CS Lewis, seem to think are important to non-believers, when my experience says that it couldn't be further from the reality.

I'm not talking about people who have never been to church, or have never even looked at a Bible. While I'm sure that those people exist, they are not the majority of non-believers that I personally know in my life and online. The people I know, including myself, were once Christians, went to church, read the Bible, and then later become non-believers. Therefore, they have a reason why they went from having faith to not having it.

If you can remember there being a reason why you were a non-believer, from your point of view at that time, I would be interested in hearing about it. If Wayne's blog isn't the place for that (and I can understand and respect that), let me know and I'll give you my email address.

Pleasure talking with you all.

Nohm said...

Hi Dorci,

To clarify, the reason why I ask the questions above is because you said that you were a non-believer because:

"What it came down to is really what it comes down for everyone, we are born with a natural leaning toward sin, and sin is the polar opposite of God."

My point is this: that is not something you would have said as a non-believer. Even if what you wrote is absolutely correct as to being the actual reason, it isn't what you would have claimed at the time.

So, in that same vein, even if what you wrote is the actual reason why I'm a non-believer, I wouldn't agree; I would list what I see as the reasons, coming from a non-believer point of view.

Therefore, I'm looking for apologetics that speak to what I see as my reasons, and not what they see as my reasons from a spiritual point-of-view (i.e., that we live in a fallen world, so of course I would run from God).

I hope that this clarification helped.

Nohm said...

Heh, one last thing:

Even though this is what I want to see/read, I don't think that anyone is necessarily obligated to satisfy my request for apologetics aimed at my reasons.

Dorci said...

Absolutely no one is born saved. And growing up in a "Christian home" does not make a person saved any more than sitting in a garage makes a person a car. There must be a personal conviction of sin and a relationship with Christ.

And being an unbeliever is not necessary the same as being an atheist. Before I was saved, I believed in God, and I believed that Jesus Christ was His Son, and that He was God. All the ingredients needed for a good conversion, except one thing: repentance. I was personally too busy just trying to literally survive the circumstances of my life to ask questions about God. I just needed to know that someone, somewhere, loved me. And when I came face to face with the reality that God did, and that He died for me, that was all I needed.

I find that usually people who ask question after question are really trying to find reasons not to believe. Too much looking at the whole forest when only one tree (the cross) is the answer. They are avoiding the real issue, because as I said, the real issue is acknowledging our sinfulness, asking for forgiveness, and accepting Jesus' work on the cross.

The books on apologetics are fine, but as you demonstrate very well, there's always something that can be argued against the different points given.

I don't believe that a person can be a believer, filled with the Holy Spirit, and then not be one. I believe a person can be religious, and then turn away from that, but that's a whole 'nother can o' worms. And I believe a person who has truly come to Christ and filled with the Spirit at one point can choose to walk away from God, but I don't think God ever walks away from him.

I don't know what questions you have that are preventing you from believing in Christ as your Savior, but there really is only one question to ask, and that one is to yourself: are you a sinner, and do you want to be forgiven?

If you ever want to email me, Nohm, you can reach me at groovychick44(at)yahoo(dot)com.

God bless.

Nohm said...

Hi Dorci,

Yes, I understand that you all consider me a "False Convert". I'm ok with that.

I'm ok with an unbeliever not necessarily being an atheist. That's why I used the word "non-believer", and why I clarified the kinds of people that I was talking about... i.e., what you would consider "False Converts".

You said:

"I find that usually people who ask question after question are really trying to find reasons not to believe."

What happens to make you "find that"? Is that what people tell you as their reason for asking questions? I don't know, but I doubt it.

Regardless, that's certainly not the reason why I ask questions. Dorci, it would be an awesome thing for me to believe in the existence of God and the afterlife.

Asking questions with the intention of not changing my opinions seems like the most useless and pointless thing I could do.

In short, in all aspects of my life, I ask questions in order to change my opinions, learn something new, and gain a better understanding.

You asked:

"are you a sinner, and do you want to be forgiven?"

"Sinner" is a religious concept, and does not apply to nontheists. If you don't already believe in a God, then there isn't any such thing as sin. Do you agree that to believe in "sin", and not "bad actions", one has to first believe in God?

Regardless, since I don't believe in "sin", I am unable to believe that I am a "sinner", and therefore I'm not looking for the kind of spiritual forgiveness that you're talking about.

Even if I did believe I was a sinner, I don't see why I would go with your solution as opposed to the Islamic solution to forgiveness.

Shorter Nohm: No, I'm not a sinner.

(Oh boy, something tells me that won't go over well.)

Dorci said...

Did you know that the word "sin" is an ancient archery term that means "to miss the mark?"

So in actuality, it is not a religious term. It simply describes what we do when we have missed the bullseye, in other words, when we've been less than perfect. When we do the wrong thing.

I would say that to murder someone is wrong, wouldn't you? And to steal is wrong. Society's standards says that these are sins and we lock people up if they do them.

And then there are things that we don't go to prison for but we still know they're wrong, like cheating on your spouse (or even checking out another woman in front of your spouse will get you into trouble!) and lying is wrong. Why? Where do we get the idea that these are wrong? Where do we get the idea of right and wrong period? Why would a godless people with no afterlife, no meaning, no purpose, no God, have any idea of or use for morals or laws?

We do because we have a Creator who instilled in us a sense of right and wrong so that 1. we can live in a society without killing each other off or living in utter chaos; and 2. so that we could turn our judging eye away from another onto ourselves and see that yes, I have done the wrong thing at times. We know they're wrong because God convicts us that they are, and at some point, some people realize that unless they have forgivenss for doing these wrong things, their sin will keep them from being with God now and later, and they realize that Jesus came and died to pay for their sins so that they could have the judgment of their sins paid for and be eternally related to God.

Nohm said...

Hi Dorci,

Would you like me to respond to this, or was this just you witnessing to me?

One quick thing, while the word "sin" might have once meant "missing the mark", it's my opinion that it means something very different now: a crime against God, or going against God's rules.

Do you agree?

One last issue: we don't call murder a "sin"; we call it a "crime". People aren't put in jail for sinning; they're put in jail for comitting crimes.