Without going into a theological rabbit hole, that's the point of a very popular belief system within Christianity, particularly much of the Christianity that we know today in the West. It was not, however, the approach of the early church. The popular Western readings we have today are heavily dependent on convenient interpretation of texts without much regard to the people the text was speaking to at the time it was written and without regard to their circumstances of class, power, political structures, or religious methods. There may be many boots in the store, but they aren't all a match or pair despite all being footwear.

No offense intended, but that's a really simplistic interpretation of what Sanuk could mean.

I really don't have a complex view. I believe in God and believe he gave us free will to live as we choose. I also believe that man, through history, has shown that we would rather exploit the resources of earth for profit, than preserve it. If we are interested in preserving the earth, we only do it after we have made our money and then blame others who aren't in that position yet. That's why we point to the 3rd world to clean up their act. We have made wealth and now expect them to do what we didn't as we were developing.

See, it's really quite simple...

Let's assume climate change is 100% manmade what is the solution? The Paris Climate Agreement will cost at least $1 trillion per year and only reduce global temperatures by 0.023 degrees by 2100.

How early? The new testament is full of reference about the sin of man and need for God's forgiveness.

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ... Romans 3:23

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

We could reference specific verses back and forth from the current canonized English text, but I don't think this is the thread for it and if we were going to do that we'd have to establish a couple of things such as why the text as it is was canonized in the form that it was, what the errors and discrepancies are in that text, and how the text was changed through interpretation & the collective message of what was selected to be the "official" Bible. That's something that undergirds the entire discussion.

But short of that and very quickly, what we get into with these discussions of "all have sinned and fallen short" and "being saved" is the question of what we're supposed to be saved from, what the end result of that is, and what kind of "truth" is being presented in the Bible (i.e. some empirical truth vs. a spiritually guiding truth that can speak to everyone). Implicit in the place that we're at with Western Christianity is that God is a distinct figure separate from humans and if we do the right thing we can be reunited with that figure. This of course seems at odds with the very words of Jesus that state that the kingdom of God is within each one of us already. It's at odds with the suggestion throughout both the Old and New Testaments that the spirit, energy, etc. of God is a breath that's radiating through everyone already, not just those that are "saved." A singular God that is "out there" and whom we must seek to be "reconciled" is at odds with the many suggestions throughout the text that God isn't a singular thing, or a triune only, but is made manifest in all things.

I would suggest that the overarching point is not about seeking God to be made whole. After all, look at the very point that was made wherever Jesus approached religious systems and what happened when the holy of holies temple curtain was said to be ripped upon his death -- the very place where God was believed to be, so holy that only the holiest of the holy men could approach it, revealed that God was not there, in the very same moment that Jesus (who is one with God in the tradition) said that God was not with him (the moment that God himself disbelieved in a kind of anthropomorphic god in crying out, "why have you forsaken me!?"). If God wasn't in the place where he was supposed to be sought out and if Jesus said the kingdom is inside of each of us, what's it mean? What's it mean when it says that all things will be made new and seeing with a new sight (not different things or different vision, but seeing those things in a brand new light)?

I'd argue that it's not at all about man being wicked and depraved in need of a rescuer to absolve us of our guilt and sin. I'd argue instead that the very point of the story is that we are already accepted in the place that we're at and by accepting & embracing our shared brokenness and pain -- pain being that which is the only thing that we all experience -- we're able to instead accept ourselves and the kingdom that is already within us. It's a grace that allows us to recognize that nothing is taboo and, as Paul wrote, all things are permissible but not all things are beneficial. Jesus spoke about being lights on a hill; the thing about light is you don't see the light, it only acts to illuminate what's already there. It's a beautiful metaphor and parable and I believe it encompasses his entire message beautifully -- that when the light allows us to see the thing that's already there, namely that the kingdom is already in us, we'll be compelled to see who we really and already are not as depraved creatures "in need of God" but as something that's inherently beautiful and accepted & this awakening to that gives us the wont to live in a way that casts that light onto others so they can see the same, rather than a "hell vs. heaven" life or death afterlife message.

I hope that makes sense. I'm in the middle of wrapping up a project and simultaneously keeping an eye on a sick kid, so I threw this together quickly without reading back through it. It's a topic that merits its own discussion outside of this thread because I think we keep running into these threads where there's an allusion that "this is what Christians believe" and clearly we don't all believe the same way.

Oh, good grief. There's a bit more to it than correlation/causation. You seem to be completely unaware of decades of scientific research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/...ecent_climate_change

Even the deniers like Judy Curry admit that at least half of the observed warming is attributable to human activity.
https://www.theguardian.com/...g-are-humans-causing

I'm thinking of going all in on this... ;)

Even have a link with Stephen Hawking's intelligence being questioned. Then again, if he's only slightly smarter than the KKK girl...

Oh, man, that was kind of fun! Stephen Hawking was likely speaking figuratively, because the climate science community accepts that a Venus-like runaway greenhouse effect is very unlikely to happen on Earth (we just don't have enough total carbon to make the necessary CO2).

I hadn't read any of Roy Spencer's stuff in a while. You know, he's pretty mouthy for a guy who published incorrect data for decades. It's kind of interesting that two decades worth of his scientific publications are largely incorrect and that he now makes a living as a rabble-rouser.

No. there is no strict budget at all, and expenditures and reductions have almost everything to do with future progress, not the present agreements. Even if you spend a lot of money, doesn't that largely just go into a the larger economy? When looking for a solution, I would ask you, in 3 decades what do you think personal ground transportation will look like, and how will it be powered? mostly/all gasoline, mostly/all electric or something in between? Refined gasoline, or largely renewable? What should it be, and how does one get there? If we are extremely likely to move away from gasoline (for a number of reasons), is it terrible to set regulations which make the process more systematic and orderly?

Looking at the example of smog reduction in the 70's, it had a definite cost, and continues to have a significant cost every year. Was/is it worth it? (IMHO Yes) Would it have happened if one only relied on market forces? IMHO No). The Paris agreements was a basic starting point, endlessly re-examined an a cost/benefit basis.

This is the thinking that drives me nuts. You're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make your opinion valid in any way. It's the same with the head of the EPA suggesting scientists debate climate change on TV and let the American people decide.

If you needed heart surgery, would you be okay with a TV debate among heart surgeons arguing different methods, and letting the viewing audience decide which type of surgery should be performed on you?

The way you answer questions is to get your best experts together to work the problem, argue among themselves, present findings, find holes in data, recalculate and come to a consensus. We've done that. The science isn't settled because science is never settled, but there's absolutely a point where the people who are best versed in a field generally agree on a point, and then you move forward.

You don't then ask an uninformed person or public to weigh in with their gut feelings on the subject.

Are you aware that scientist have not been able to determine what percentage of climate change is directly caused by man?

How do you explain this? They spent $100 million and are causing the local government to go broke. Science right?

Are you aware that they have a pretty good idea?

I posted a couple of links in post #31. Clearly you did not read them.

To Christians this is a matter of faith, which ends the debate or at least should. Some Christians go awry and try to provide evidence such as would be used in most any other matter, but that will always end poorly for them.