Transcript of Nanosermon ‘Fossil fuels are the gift of God’ below:
In this Nanosermon, I’m going to prove, from the Bible, that fossil fuels are a gift from God, and discuss how they are a step up from burning wood or charcoal. Fasten your safety belt, here we go.
There’s a song in the musical My Fair Lady (28 – 34 seconds), sung by Stanley Holloway. It’s called ‘A little bit of luck.’ Here’s an extract:
‘The Lord above gave liquor for temptation, to see if man could turn away from sin.’
No, that’s not totally Biblical, it’s just a song. Yes, the Lord above gave wine (Psa 104:15), but to gladden the heart of man, not for temptation.
Turn away from Climate Sin
However, for climate fanatics, the Lord above, if they believe in the Lord above, has placed fossil fuels in the earth for the same reason, not to use in moderation, but to see if man can turn away from climate sin. So what does the Bible say about minerals in the earth?
This is Deuteronomy chapter eight, where God is talking about the promised land. It is:
Deu 8:9b … a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass.
Or copper, in the Hebrew. And here’s Job, chapter twenty-eight:
Job 28:1 Surely there is a vein for the silver, and a place for gold where they fine it. 2 Iron is taken out of the earth, and brass is molten out of the stone.
All of them are there by the grace of God for man to use. So is the bitumen which ancient people dug from the ground and used as mortar in building. (Gen 11:3) So is the clay they used to make pottery. It’s technology, right there in the Bible, from our Creator God who upholds the world and all things by the word of his power (Heb 1:3). Sign our Petition:
Coal mine started oil and gas
According to offshore-technology.com, the oil and gas industry started as recently as 1847, when Scottish chemist James Young observed natural petroleum seepage in the Riddings coal mine. He distilled from it a thin oil suitable for lamps and a thicker oil for lubrication.
Dyball consultants say that by 200BC the Chinese were using coal for heat and as a trading commodity.
Coal, oil and gas may not have been known as such to the Bible writers, although Job goes on to say:
Job 28:5 As for the earth, out of it cometh bread: and under it, is turned up as it were fire.
Discovery of coal stopped deforestation
In any event, the same principle employs. God has put fossil fuels there for our use.
Dybal go on to say coal was also vital to China’s metallurgy industry. Smelting was known to Job, but it flourished in China around 120BC. Dybal say:
‘Due to the huge demand for fuel for forges and furnaces, China faced issues from deforestation as forests were felled to provide fuel. As the crisis deepened, an alternative fuel source was found in coal’. Here’s Jordan Peterson at the Cambridge Union in October 2019 (5:37-6.00):
‘There’s more trees in the northern hemisphere than there were a hundred years ago. Nobody knows that, but it’s true and by a substantial margin. You know why, in part? Because people burn coal instead of wood. Everyone says we shouldn’t burn coal. OK, what are you going to do? Burn trees instead? Because that’s what poor people would have done. Coal isn’t good? Well, it’s better than burning wood.’
UK burns wood in the Drax Power Station
The UK is actually doing what the Canadian academic scorned: shipping wood chip made from primal forests in Canada over here to burn in the Drax power station instead of coal. They’ve fooled themselves into thinking it’s ‘greener’ than coal. But the emissions are far worse and the subsidies are ridiculous. It’s the politics of absurdity..
Renewables are intermittent and need cover for when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, or shines too hot for solar to work properly.
If you spurn the Lord’s gift of coal, oil and gas and keep them in the ground, as the Gretas want, and you refuse to plug the gap with nuclear, using another God-given mineral, by the way, then you’ll have to burn wood, as we do here on the farm, or use charcoal made from it, like the Chinese were doing and like poor people do for cooking all over the world today. And you will have massive deforestation.
Heat pump too expensive
We have an electric heat-pump heating the water for our farmhouse. We could use it to drive the under-floor heating, but it’s now too expensive to run, so we use a wood-burning stove indoors as well as this one here in our chapel.
Wood, biomass, as they call it, is not free, you have to spend valuable time cutting down the trees, or cutting up fallen ones, logging, chopping, stacking, seasoning, chipping the brush, bringing it all in and keeping the fire going.
Maybe we should install a gas boiler before our government ban them. Fossil fuels have so much more energy in them compared with wood. Gas would be cleaner, more efficient and probably cheaper, all things considered.
Not ‘a sin’ to burn gas and coal
For generating electricity, nuclear is the most sensible way. Bjorn Lomborg says nuclear plants are currently too expensive, but they cost peanuts compared with all the net zero money now being squandered. Until they come on line, we’ll have to burn those God-given fossil fuels and recognise it isn’t ‘a sin’ to do so.
Let me know what YOU think in the comments below, subscribe to the channel and like and share the video. Also see the links below for the transcript and references a petition against net zero and also to support us. Pray for me and for Christian Voice, pray for our leaders to turn away from their real sin of not seeking the Lord for wisdom, and if you made it this far, thanks for watching!
Ask us to come and speak at your church →
Related Stories
Hail destroys giant solar park →
Veganuary? Eat meat, avoid UPFs! →
King Charles preaches Net Zero at COP28 →
Net zero car ban pushed back →
Closing the Port Talbot Blast Furnaces →
UN exploiting children for political gain →
Cult of Climate Change hits the buffers
of Uxbridge and energy security →
Support us!
We appreciate your support; it enables our research and helps us inform your prayers.
So click below to support Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings
Or fill in the form below to keep in touch:
Click on the social media links below to share this post:
I get you, I hear you. We do need coal but at the same time, we don’t need it. By that I mean we can mostly do without it. What I don’t get is how people have to go down the binary road always, as if one has to be right and the other is wrong and circumstances do not matter. It isn’t a climate sin but it is an investment sin. History and technology are progressive. Otherwise, we would not have any of the mod cons that so many of us have come to rely on. At one time no one ever had electricity. People were fine with candles because electricity was expensive, and nobody had any infrastructure. That cost an arm and a leg but can you imagine telling people now that we should do away with electricity today? For one, this webpage would not exist and no one could ever comment on it but we take it for granted.
Climate change is real. How real is up for debate but climate change does indeed happen. Is it only because of greenhouse gases? Yes and no. The science is secure but also broad with a plethora of variables. It isn’t just greenhouse gases but that is just part of the problem. Even if we removed all of the coal burning we cannot stop it totally. Greenhouse gases (mostly CO2) is a major factor. Chemically speaking burning anything will contribute CO2 be it wood, coal, gas, oil or any other fossil fuel source. It is just chemistry and you cannot change that. Considering nuclear might be better for CO2 but that brings its own set of new problems with radiation. At the end of the day, having less is always good, no matter what it costs us. Cost should not be the sole arbiter of whether a project is good or bad. Affordability is also a factor as is practicality. If you are wealthy enough, it should be incumbent upon you to try harder. If you are a struggling pensioner, then that too should be a consideration. There are always options for most people such as trying to save energy where possible, even as simple as changing a lightbulb that isn’t going to cost you the earth but will pay back in a slightly reduced electricity bill which if everyone did the same, will reduce the CO2 burden to some degree. I don’t see this as a binary choice of good or bad. It is more of a can and ought. I am not expecting everyone to never burn coal. For some people in a remote mountain top, maybe that is their only source of fuel. If you are in the city, this ought to be your last choice.
At some point in our history, fossil fuels are going to get more expensive due to rarity. Coal is still relatively cheap and plentiful so those who want it can if there is any demand at all to mine it. Obviously, it isn’t cost-free either. Oil is going to run out probably in my lifetime, and gase likewise. That is why it is stupid to continue to install gas CH boilers 10 years from now when we don’t actually have gas to burn anymore. We have to think better and plan for the future. Sure solar and wind are not complete solutions. Solar is more of a personal solution whilst wind is more of a corporate solution but they are but a contribution to the energy mix. It does not make sense to deny the reality of the rarity of fossil fuels that are going to run out sooner or later and the cost of getting them becomes more and more astronomical. At the end of the day, we need to find new solutions ahead of time and before that critical time comes when it just stops. As good as fossil fuels have been, we need to explore the many other possible avenues on offer that so far, few have actually explored.
The most common mistake that people make is that solar only works when there is sun. Absolutely true if you do not think beyond the box. Thinking beyond the box, if there was sufficient power in the sun, the ultimate source of all energy on earth, then there are ways to store that energy. There are scientists working on this as we speak. It isn’t just a battery on the wall. It might even be going back to old school technology such as hydro electric power and gravity based systems. What we must not do is to deny the need and moan about the change. Change is going to happen because of necessity and reality. New infrastructure might form part of that change because it is a better solution in the long term.
So yes, it isn’t a sin to burn coal or oil but it is irresponsible of us to not look for alternatives and continue as if it made no difference. If I may spiritualise this; if an unbeliever looked at their life today, there is little to indicate that when they die, they won’t see heaven. That is because eternity is not yet real for them. Judgment is not real, because God is not real to them. If they could see the spiritual realities before them, is it irresponsible (or even moronic) for them to continue as they always have and not seek repentance and faith before it is too late? Likewise, any sane person would make changes now because they can and because they can see the harsh realities that lie in the future. Plus this isn’t just about me, it is about all of us who share this planet. Climate change is not to be our idol or master but it is our responsibility no matter how small that contribution might be.
People need fuel and the developing world needs electric power now. In the absence of nuclear power, that means fossil fuels. As well as ‘the planet’ we need to think about reducing poverty. The climate fanatics do not think about people and they aren’t that bothered about the environment either, if they are prepared to cut down thousands of trees in forests in Germany just to throw up wind turbines. The most plausible explanation is that it’s a command and control agenda dreamed up by the godless elite to benefit themselves and their friends, certainly not the masses.