A while ago we were pondering on how the Pope was blaming atheists for marginalising God, therefore putting themselves at odds with nature.
It’s one thing to say mankind is at odds with the environment, and we can see the consequences of our raping of the planet – whether global warming is one of them or not, and that’s a hot topic (pun intended) – but to say it’s because we’re marginalising something for which there’s no proof anyway is pushing it a bit.
Anyway, in response to something that had obviously passed before (perhaps someone commenting on this very thing, who knows?), a writer in Dumfries called Flood has this to say:
Given its apocalyptic potential, I suppose it was only a matter of time before the various religions got in on the climate change act (Letters, 22 September).
When God, in His infinite wisdom, created the Earth, why did He put all that coal, oil and natural gas under the ground? Was it just for decoration? Did He not intend the subjects of His creation to make use of it? Could Christian Aid explain what exactly is sinful about putting a lump of coal on the fire to keep warm in winter?
And why, when He set up the global climatic system, did God make it so sensitive to changes in greenhouse gas levels that an additional whiff of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere brings the whole planetary biosphere crashing about our ears? It strikes me that this God is either all-knowing or all-loving, but not both.
Flood is an appropriate name given that the Flood (usually with a capital F) was the last purported climatic catastrophe (yeah, somewhere between the Tigris and the Euphrates, not the entire Earth, as Genesis would have us believe, and there were no animals going into a boat two by two).
But what’s this sceptic doing with all the capital H’s on his pronouns? I find this odd, because on many atheist and sceptic websites and blogs I still see this nonsense: He this and Him that. Even the KJ Bible doesn’t do that, nor the Book of Common Prayer.
Just something left over from something or other, I guess.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.
We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.
Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.
Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.