It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Moses Complex and Climate Change - Do Christians think they can control the weather?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 28 2014 @ 06:26 PM
Well from a religious point of view, I do not think Christians should assume as much. This is because it would ultimately have been God controlling the weather, not the person themselves, at least the way I understand it. Then there is also the possibility that natural phenomena accounted for a miraculous event such as Moses parting the sea, although that does not mean God couldn't have been involved. I mean the timing would see pretty coincidental, although it has been proposed that Moses knew the area well, and perhaps he had an inkling of what was going to occur.

From my personal experience, the majority of Christians are regular, everyday people, who are not zealously fanatical and who balance modern science with their Christian ideology. They are not deluded enough to think that they can control the weather, although I am certain that many of them believe that God could, if so inclined. Now whether they believe they could ask God to do something and He would, where the weather is concerned, I do not know. Some might, but they would not expect it.

The "delusional" Christians make up a relatively small minority in my opinion, although we could argue semantics I suppose, and someone could say that anyone who believed in religion is delusional, but that is missing the point I am trying to make, which is that your average Christian is "normal." Although it could also be argued that someone who does not believe in God is abnormal, considering it could be something that is ingrained in the brain in some manner. But again, that is not what this is about. I will admit that I could be wrong, and perhaps there are a whole host of "very delusional" Christians; it is just that my experiences have not suggested as much.

posted on May, 28 2014 @ 07:02 PM
a reply to: BobAthome
I hear ya man. Same in my neck of the woods in NB. We had frost on the ground sunday night..... Trees are still almost naked. And it's almost june.

posted on May, 29 2014 @ 03:01 AM

originally posted by: darkbake
I was thinking about Climate Change today, and the conservative camp seems to be keen to ignore it as if it will go away. I understand that in other areas, conservative Christian types can make issues they don't like go away through tactics like resource shorting, misinformation, sabotage and intimidation -

Interesting choice of terms there. You have the culprit wrong, however. It's the global warming crowd that does things like you describe:

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

Let's break it down, shall we?

"resource shorting" -

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

"misinformation" -

More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions. “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

"sabotage and intimidation" -

The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

originally posted by: darkbake
So I was thinking about it, and the Bible has a few accounts in it involving weather - there is Noah, who is able to predict and survive a flood, but more importantly, there is Moses, who was able to part the river in order to pass through with his brethren - this is an example of faith controlling the weather, or other natural forces. Is it subconsciously ingrained in modern Christians today?

Not accurate in either case. God told Noah about the flood; no prediction on Noah's part. God used Moses to part the sea as well; no power from Moses was used there. If you understood the passages, you wouldn't ask this question, because the question isn't based on the passages.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:32 PM
Personally I think the rhetoric concerning the impact of climate change may subconsciously affect devout Christians in that it is essentially heralding that the events of the Revelation are coming upon them.

I mean when they hear massive flooding, extreme weather destroying all the things made by man, crippling famine, wars and rumors of wars globally, and often the necessity of establishing a world governing body (ruled by knowledge) to address the issue.

LoL seriously it is like scientists read the Bible and then came up with ways to rationalize that all of these predictions from thousands of years ago were going to come true.

edit on 3-6-2014 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:25 AM

It was put forth by liberal interests early on hoping to use it as a lever to tax corporations

Actually it was "put forth" by a scientist who noticed that CO2 was increasing rapidly since the industrial revolution. There was nothing political about it until republicans heard about it and decided that caring about the planet was the devil's work (and that it required some responsibility and possibly money)
edit on 4-6-2014 by CB328 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in