• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Conservative Christians and Global Warming

S

Sniffles

Guest
St. Paul calls upon Christians to be good citizens. Not to mention Christ's command to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Seen the recent movie Knowing?


The sheer mundane gall of the story is itself compelling.
 

Wiley45

New member
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
669
MBTI Type
INFP
A conservative Christian closest to me believes that global warming is a liberal leftist conspiracy, and that people buy into it because they need something to give their lives to since they don't have Jesus. (I'm not being facetious. That's really what he said.)

Why take care of the earth if it's all going to burn? It's the same reason this person always tells me there is no point in trying to make peace on earth. There will be no peace until Jesus comes back, therefore the sentiment "peace on earth" is "stupid."
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
So the Christian Right believes in stuff like that, yet in the meantime, makes a point to uphold capitalism as the political savior of the earth (hence, global warming is a myth, because it is a leftist scheme to regulate and limit capitalism).

Also, I used to take a "futurist" view of scripture (Peter's and other's prophecies were yet future and literal), but the problem was, in many places, it was said to occur "soon", and the lost blatant example of this was Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. We have tried to explain this away, with absolutely no success, and it just becomes another one of those things "we can't comprehend".

So I have found the preterist interpretation (that the Temple system was "the old world" to be destroyed, which did occur in some of their lifetimes) makes much more sense.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
A conservative Christian closest to me believes that global warming is a liberal leftist conspiracy, and that people buy into it because they need something to give their lives to since they don't have Jesus. (I'm not being facetious. That's really what he said.)

No justification needed here.

That's been exactly the same experience I've had with many people in my churches.

It's what they were taught, along with the "oppressed minority / the world is sliding into moral disarray and only we can save it" mentality, and it appeals to them in some way.

Why take care of the earth if it's all going to burn? It's the same reason this person always tells me there is no point in trying to make peace on earth. There will be no peace until Jesus comes back, therefore the sentiment "peace on earth" is "stupid."

Actually, that's a step up on the reasoning chain. I'm impressed.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I disagree. A Christian ought to be intimately concerned with politics, and he will actively work against those beliefs that manifest themselves in cultures and institutions that do not recognize the law of God.

I think everyone brings personal morality into their politics; they oppose things they disagree with, they support things they approve of. Some are better than others at not abusing their power to impose a minority perspective on the majority, but it makes sense that people would use what avenues they can to endorse what they believe.

I think the offensive nature is simply when people follow a book that is actually an F-style values system -- i.e., not universally apparent in terms of the specific details, it either is accepted on faith/conviction or not accepted on faith -- but insist that everyone else must follow it as well "because it's right." Politics has the nasty aspect where morality is codified into law, so now you're imposing rules on people who are already "good/productive citizens" that have little to do with maintaining the state as functional; it's maintaining the state as an extension of the details of a particular religious belief, in a country that claims to not endorse a particular religion and supposedly provides freedom of worship.

If I was the parent, I'd consider the more conservative religions to be the kids that did not respect their siblings and basically feel like I had to protect the rest of the kids from their desire to dominate them and set the rules; meanwhile, I'd have to encourage my more liberal kids to make sure they had some solid footing and direction. It's frustrating to see factions arguing about why they should be in charge based on their personal beliefs rather than any universal standard, and why other people's opinions really don't hold any weight (since they're not in agreement with theirs).

I think global warming's pretty cut and dried. Examine the state of things (observable by anyone); determine as best as we can if there is anything to do to stop it; then take steps to be prudent. It's all observable, all tangible, all sensible... I don't need to reference a book to tell me to call the fire company to put out my burning house, and especially if the book might tell me that my house really isn't on fire at all. It's more prudent to actually smell for smoke, feel for heat, look for flames.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
I think the Religious Right's disregard towards global warming has little to do with scripture, and much to do with the political alliance between Protestants and unabridged capitalism. "The Protestant Ethic".

Although the scripture that talks about The Rapture, and how Jesus will return to earth and take Christians with him back to Heaven, surely could be related to a disregard towards our petty earthly environment.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
That's an important point to keep in mind: after all Christianity is 2000 years old while our modern political categories are only 300 years old(they date from the French Revolution).

Trying to read Global Warming into Biblical prophecy is very much akin IMO to those who try to read 9/11 or the Iraq War, or anyother contemporary events into it. You really can't do that, and in some ways betrays the more perennial significance of such prophecies.

If one assumes that Biblical prophecy is true, then it is perfectly reasonable to read recent events into it. While by terms of scientific logic contemporary events could not be "predicted" by the Bible, there is absolutely no reason to dismiss the possibility that someone who was actually conveying signs from God could see that far into the future. There's lots of stuff in the Bible about how thousands of years are a blink of an eye for God.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
Also, I used to take a "futurist" view of scripture (Peter's and other's prophecies were yet future and literal), but the problem was, in many places, it was said to occur "soon", and the lost blatant example of this was Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. We have tried to explain this away, with absolutely no success, and it just becomes another one of those things "we can't comprehend".

I believe that passage comes right before the Mount of Transfiguration passage, so I originally intrepted that to refer to the Mount of Transfiguration where 3 disciples did see him in full glory. However it is probably more theologically consistent to say that his kingdom was heralded in by his death on the cross. In either case I don't see any problem with the prophecy in this passage.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Because they can only follow one religion.

Accepting scientific theories about climate change doesn't qualify as a "religion."

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who thinks so is very much oversimplifying things.

However, in the same breath that I say that,it's also good to remember that much of what makes up science are actually theories and not facts.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
A conservative Christian closest to me believes that global warming is a liberal leftist conspiracy, and that people buy into it because they need something to give their lives to since they don't have Jesus. (I'm not being facetious. That's really what he said.)

Why take care of the earth if it's all going to burn? It's the same reason this person always tells me there is no point in trying to make peace on earth. There will be no peace until Jesus comes back, therefore the sentiment "peace on earth" is "stupid."

What your friend claims runs completely contradictory to the Bible. Your friend really should read scripture more often before claiming that we have no need to care for the earth. Jesus also taught a message of love. It boggles my mind how many "Christians" have utterly forgotten that.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Accepting scientific theories about climate change doesn't qualify as a "religion."

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who thinks so is very much oversimplifying things.

However, in the same breath that I say that,it's also good to remember that much of what makes up science are actually theories and not facts.

Yes, some of science is "theory."

However, there's still a big difference between "faith healing" for example (a religious belief) and getting medicine from a doctor to reliably cure certain ills and sometimes save lives. Science is replicable, and its theories (the respectable ones) are drawn from replicable experiments; religion is just a truth claim.

We should continue to make a distinction between the two -- something I see this oh-so-innocent phrase "Science is just theory" as trying to conveniently eradicate. It's merely a blanket dismissal without having to actually learn or understand any of the science underlying some of the claims.

Do we have a molecular biologist or environmental engineer in the house?

What your friend claims runs completely contradictory to the Bible. Your friend really should read scripture more often before claiming that we have no need to care for the earth. Jesus also taught a message of love. It boggles my mind how many "Christians" have utterly forgotten that.

Yes, there are a lot of them out there. What I want to know is how many of them do there have to be, before we can fairly and honestly consider them the "majority" and thus representative of the particular faith system at large?

Right now, I see many appeals being made as to, "Oh, those are the crazies you've been talking to -- REAL believers wouldn't think such a thing."
 

JivinJeffJones

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
3,702
MBTI Type
INFP
Although the scripture that talks about The Rapture, and how Jesus will return to earth and take Christians with him back to Heaven, surely could be related to a disregard towards our petty earthly environment.

I'm pretty sure that's the source of most conservative protestant indifference to the topic, actually. They figure the rapture will happen before climate change becomes genuinely catastrophic. And in the mean time the priority is trying to stop people going to hell.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
I think everyone brings personal morality into their politics; they oppose things they disagree with, they support things they approve of. Some are better than others at not abusing their power to impose a minority perspective on the majority, but it makes sense that people would use what avenues they can to endorse what they believe.

I think the offensive nature is simply when people follow a book that is actually an F-style values system -- i.e., not universally apparent in terms of the specific details, it either is accepted on faith/conviction or not accepted on faith -- but insist that everyone else must follow it as well "because it's right." Politics has the nasty aspect where morality is codified into law, so now you're imposing rules on people who are already "good/productive citizens" that have little to do with maintaining the state as functional; it's maintaining the state as an extension of the details of a particular religious belief, in a country that claims to not endorse a particular religion and supposedly provides freedom of worship.

If I was the parent, I'd consider the more conservative religions to be the kids that did not respect their siblings and basically feel like I had to protect the rest of the kids from their desire to dominate them and set the rules; meanwhile, I'd have to encourage my more liberal kids to make sure they had some solid footing and direction. It's frustrating to see factions arguing about why they should be in charge based on their personal beliefs rather than any universal standard, and why other people's opinions really don't hold any weight (since they're not in agreement with theirs).

I think global warming's pretty cut and dried. Examine the state of things (observable by anyone); determine as best as we can if there is anything to do to stop it; then take steps to be prudent. It's all observable, all tangible, all sensible... I don't need to reference a book to tell me to call the fire company to put out my burning house, and especially if the book might tell me that my house really isn't on fire at all. It's more prudent to actually smell for smoke, feel for heat, look for flames.

Christians, especially the good sensitive ones, have a bad habit of withdrawing either into monasticism or from public/political life. There are a variety of reasons why this is so, but the common theme between them is that these Christians don't believe that the good for man is to know God through his works of creation and providence, (e.g., the good is a beatific vision or heaven in the after life. When either of these views become predominant in one's thinking, he will naturally devalue the revelation of God here, now, on earth; they become other-worldly--and this is usually seen as the only alternative to 'this-worldliness', or the attempt to make a utopia here on earth apart from God.) When this happens, this world is neglected, and doing anything to improve this world is thought to be merely "polishing brass on a sinking ship."

Now, just where the the state's sphere of sovereignty ends is unclear to me, but there is a universal standard, and, instead of viewing the state as part of the fallen world that is to be eschewed, Christians should actively work to support a state that upholds that standard--but by claiming that the standard is universal, and by meting out consequences upon failure to act in accordance with that standard, the Christian has a moral imperative to show the clarity of that standard.

So, boo wielding the sword in order to enforce an "F-style value system."
 

swordpath

New member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
10,547
MBTI Type
ISTx
Enneagram
5w6
However, in the same breath that I say that,it's also good to remember that much of what makes up science are actually theories and not facts.
And what is Christianity... and all other religions?

The main difference is that science is always churning to build new theories based off of evidence and findings, continuously trying to either prove or disprove former theories. Religion is stuck on their old doctrines and writings, still trying to interpret what's literal and what's metaphorical and at the same time attempting to apply it in answering questions of existence and questions of "where have we been and where are we going?".

I'd have to choose science as being the more reliable and legitimate source.
 

nomadic

mountain surfing
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
1,709
MBTI Type
enfp
I disagree. A Christian ought to be intimately concerned with politics, and he will actively work against those beliefs that manifest themselves in cultures and institutions that do not recognize the law of God.

We as Christians need to be faithful witnesses of the truth of God to the world, which means we need to be in the world, working in its institutions even when we work against them, not withdrawn from the them.

If you want to do "God's work", you should be witnessing, going on missions, helping set up churches all over the world... Thats really the only true work of God. I don't think Jesus ran for mayor, or would. Its hard to do the real nitty gritty "dirty" work, because its natural to listen to one's own ambitions to do more visible, recognition things of the world.

Anyways, im sorry, I can't talk any more about this... peace.
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
If you want to do "God's work", you should be witnessing, going on missions, helping set up churches all over the world... Thats really the only true work of God. I don't think Jesus ran for mayor, or would. Its hard to do the real nitty gritty "dirty" work, because its natural to listen to one's own ambitions to do more visible, recognition things of the world.

Anyways, im sorry, I can't talk any more about this... peace.

+1
 

r.a

meat popsicle
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
496
MBTI Type
STFU
i just want to know why the tens of thousands of reputable scientists who speak out against global warming are blacked out by the mainstream media. there is more than enough evidence against man-made global warming but if one speak out against it he or she is immediately chastised by others.

its like being against obama. if one speaks out against him in my home town of ann arbor michigan the scene becomes reminiscent of an honor-killing, with some know-nothing hippie casting the first stone.

fuck that.

i'm going to need MUCH more evidence that global warming is man-made to even entertain it past any of the thought i already put into it when i didnt know better, and obama is, for all i know, a non-us citizen (and well-trained actor) who works for the bankers in europe. sorry, obama fans. give me EVIDENCE to the contrary and i might change my tune.
 
Top