Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby nitram » Sun Apr 06, 2014 11:16 am

by Dennis Prager

As I have often noted, the most dynamic and influential religion of the past hundred years has not been Christianity, let alone Judaism, the two religions that created the Western world. Nor has it been Islam. It has been Leftism.

Leftism has influenced the literary, academic, media, and, therefore, the political elite far more than any other religion. It has taken over Western schools from elementary through graduate.

For most of that time, various incarnations of Marxism have been the dominant expressions – and motivators – of Leftism: specifically, income redistribution, material equality and socialism. They are still powerful aspects of the left, but with the downfall of most communist regimes, other left-wing expressions have generated even more passion: first feminism and then environmentalism.

Nothing comes close to environmentalism in generating left-wing enthusiasm. It is the religion of our time. For the left, the earth has supplanted patriotism. This was largely inevitable in Europe, given its contempt for nationalism since the end of World War I and even more so since World War II. But it is now true for the elites (almost all of whose members are on the left) in America as well.

This was most graphically displayed by the infamous Time magazine cover of April 21, 2008 that altered the most iconic photograph in American history – Joe Rosenthal's picture of the marines planting the flag on Iwo Jima. Instead of the American flag, the Time cover depicted the marines planting a tree. The caption on the cover read: “How to Win the War on Global Warming.” In other words, just as German and Japanese fascism was the enemy in World War II, global warming is the enemy today. And instead of allegiance to the nation's flag, now our allegiance must be to nature.

This is the antithesis of the Judeo-Christian view of the world that has dominated Western civilization for all of the West's history. The Judeo-Christian worldview is that man is at the center of the universe; nature was therefore created for man. Nature has no intrinsic worth other than man's appreciation and (moral) use of it.

Worship of nature was the pagan worldview, a worship that the Hebrew Bible was meant to destroy. The messages of the Creation story in Genesis were that:

1) God created nature. God is not in nature, and nature is not God. Nature is nothing more than His handiwork. Therefore it is He, not nature, that is to be worshipped. The pagan world held nature in esteem; its gods were gods of nature (not above nature).

2) Nature cannot be worshipped because nature is amoral, whereas God is moral.

3) All of creation had one purpose: the final creation, the human being.

With the demise of the biblical religions that have provided the American people with their core values since their country's inception, we are reverting to the pagan worldview. Trees and animals are venerated, while man is simply one more animal in the ecosystem – and largely a hindrance, not an asset.

On February 20, a pit bull attacked a 4-year-old boy, Kevin Vicente, leaving the boy with a broken eye socket and a broken jaw. Kevin will have to undergo months, perhaps years, of additional reconstructive surgeries. A Facebook page was set up to raise funds. But it wasn't set up for Kevin. It was set up for the dog. The “Save Mickey” page garnered over 70,000 “likes,” and raised more than enough money to provide legal help to prevent the dog from being euthanized. There were even candlelight vigils and a YouTube video plea for the dog.

The non-profit legal group defending Mickey is the Lexus Project. According to CBS News, “the same group fought earlier this year for the life of a dog that fatally mauled a toddler in Nevada.”

This is the trend. Nature over man.

This is why environmentalists oppose the Keystone pipeline. Nature over man. The pipeline will provide work for thousands of people and it will enable Canada and the United States to increasingly break away from dependence on other countries for their energy needs. But to the true believers who make up much of the environmentalist movement, none of that matters. Just as they didn't care about the millions of Africans who died of malaria as a result of those environmentalists' efforts to ban DDT.

One of the fathers of the green movement is James Lovelock, the scientist who originated the Gaia hypothesis of the earth as a single living organism. This past Sunday, the British newspaper, the Guardian, reported that, “Talking about the environmental movement, Lovelock says: 'It's become a religion, and religions don't worry too much about facts.'”

He also told the interviewer “that he had been too certain about the rate of global warming in his past book … that fracking and nuclear power should power the UK, not renewable sources such as wind farms.”

As G.K. Chesterton prophesied over a hundred years ago: “When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing – they believe in anything.”

Now it's the environment.
Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or f-ing beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.- Al Swearengen
User avatar
nitram
hunter
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: West OK on the South Canadian Riviera


Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Apr 06, 2014 12:29 pm

:thumbsup: good read.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56505
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby rgriff75 » Sun Apr 06, 2014 9:50 pm

The environment affects the human. Another thing to add, do you really think a stronger switch to sustainable/renewable energy wouldn't create jobs? It would create jobs in the metal works industry, welding, installation, maintenance, research. There would be an unbelievable amount of jobs created. Why not take advantage of energy that hits the earth day in and day out? Why is it always one side or the other side, what is wrong with the middle. Why can't we take advantage of solar/wind energy and also use oil? Lefties or righties, it gets old hearing that %$#@.
rgriff75
hunter
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:16 pm

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby Duck_Stank » Sun Apr 06, 2014 11:15 pm

Nature is like a cat. It can be pretty to look at, but it doesn't care if you're there or not.
Master of Reality
User avatar
Duck_Stank
hunter
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:35 am
Location: Greenville, Pennsylvania

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:36 am

rgriff75 wrote:The environment affects the human. Another thing to add, do you really think a stronger switch to sustainable/renewable energy wouldn't create jobs? It would create jobs in the metal works industry, welding, installation, maintenance, research. There would be an unbelievable amount of jobs created. Why not take advantage of energy that hits the earth day in and day out? Why is it always one side or the other side, what is wrong with the middle. Why can't we take advantage of solar/wind energy and also use oil? Lefties or righties, it gets old hearing that %$#@.



Complete crap says I! I know a bunch of kids who went to Wind Turbine School and can't get jobs. I know a bunch more who got degrees in green energy and can't get jobs. Care to guess where most of the wind turbine systems are being built before they are put up? Europe, that is where. Some are being built here, but not most. We constantly see major shipments of German wind turbine components being shipped into local ports. No American jobs there. Ever hear of NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.....? Obama is the "greenest" president ever and there are still no jobs available in the green energy field.

Why not take advantage of the energy? Because it does not have a positive capital return. My workplace built a solar system off the Stimulus Package ( your taxes ) for $300,000. Guess what the payoff time is. 30 years. Guess what the life expectancy of the system is. 30 years. That means the system never pays itself off, you just break even assuming it works for it's entire life. That was with a major government discount on the materials and supplies, your tax dollar paying the bill, and a complete waste of that tax dollar to look green.
Last edited by ScaupHunter on Mon Apr 07, 2014 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6503
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:03 am

rgriff75 wrote:The environment affects the human.
Exactly. That is why it took so many generations to overcome the harmful effects of the environment and to change it and manipulate it for the benefit of mankind.

We just need to make sure that all those changes are a net positive. Did the smoke from wood not harm the earlier settlers? Of course, but without it the environment would have killed them or made their lives quit miserable. Over time, we found better ways to over come that harmful effect of the environment while doing less harm in the process.

rgriff75 wrote:Another thing to add, do you really think a stronger switch to sustainable/renewable energy wouldn't create jobs?
A kilowatt of electricity or a BTU of thermal energy produce the same benefit regardless of the source. If we pay more money for that kilowatt than is necessary that will make all of us poorer. It is that simple. What is the additional benefit that outweighs that greater cost? That is VERY subjective. If you live in a city and don't hunt or do any things outside the city, laying waste to millions of acres to put in wind and solar is cost free in the opinion of the city dweller.

Forcing people to pay more without benefits that exceed the cost are net DESTROYER of jobs.

To create jobs (wealth), it must be a net positive. Energy sources sustained by taxpayer funding or government mandates destroy jobs in aggregate.

rgriff75 wrote:It would create jobs in the metal works industry, welding, installation, maintenance, research. There would be an unbelievable amount of jobs created.
This is a case where reductio ad absurdum is valuable to understand that there may be a serious flaw in this argument. If the government took money from taxpayers and hired a million people to dig holes and another million people to follow behind them and fill them back in and return them to the exact same condition that existed. Would that be a NET producer of jobs in society? Of course not. It would destroy the productive output of two million people.

Now in the case of your example. If those same two million people are subsidized to produce expensive energy sources that let's assume is 20% more costly than the free market cost of that same output, the government has on average destroyed the productive output of 400,000 (20% of the two million) people. If those 400,000 people had been working to produce something that had positive value, that would have created many jobs down the road that will never exist because their effort were directed to do something with negative value relative to the alternative.

rgriff75 wrote:Why can't we take advantage of solar/wind energy and also use oil? Lefties or righties, it gets old hearing that %$#@.
Nobody opposes using solar and wind where they are the best choice.

Lefties want to force society to use them where there are superior alternatives at this time.

Righties do not want to see the huge destruction of wealth that comes from forcing society to use them where there are superior alternatives.

The problem the lefties have is that at present and likely for well into the distant future wind and solar will never be more than niche applications that would only supply a very small fraction (<<1%) of our energy demand.

Where there is disagreement within the righties is the level of taxpayer funded research and development into new and improved energy technologies. I believe that it should be a significant level of effort, but take that with a grain of salt since that is what I do for a living.

The divergence among the lefties on taxpayer funded research and development into new and improved energy technologies is what technologies they find acceptable. Wind and solar, of course, but what about nuclear? The ONLY alternative that has the potential to displace all carbon emitting technologies while improving the U.S. standard of living and allowing the rest of the world to eventually achieve the same standards as Americans.

http://www.ne.anl.gov/About/open_house/2012/Energy%20Needs_rev2bg.pdf
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15933
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby Rat Creek » Mon Apr 07, 2014 11:53 am

rgriff75 wrote:The environment affects the human. Another thing to add, do you really think a stronger switch to sustainable/renewable energy wouldn't create jobs? It would create jobs in the metal works industry, welding, installation, maintenance, research. There would be an unbelievable amount of jobs created. Why not take advantage of energy that hits the earth day in and day out? Why is it always one side or the other side, what is wrong with the middle. Why can't we take advantage of solar/wind energy and also use oil? Lefties or righties, it gets old hearing that %$#@.



I would be in complete agreement with you EXCEPT that wind and solar approaches simply shift the expense of nonviable energy creation to others through the strong arm of the government. The reason coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydro-electric work is because the expense of creating the energy is directly born by the consumer. It does not require an endless subsidy from unwilling tax payers to make it happen.

I work for a company with multiple limousine liberals at the top and for politically correct reasons, and because most of the expense was born by the taxpayers, our company installed a big solar array atop one of our buildings in New Jersey. All the liberals were just giddy with excitement about saving the planet. Then some evil, capitalist accountant asked the question - What percentage of the energy use of this building will be offset by this equipment. Well, after several minutes of bobbing and weaving about time of year, weather patterns, etc, the answer was forced out. Less than 1%. Now, that can mean .9% or .0000001%. By any measure, it is a tiny rounding error. But we do know that it will provide almost nothing, though it cost seven figures to install. So the truth of the matter is we still have a coal and nuclear powered building, but we have awesome signage extolling the virtues of our worthless endeavor.

It would little different than if I wanted to create "green" roadways made from used baby diapers. It can be done, but will cost $100 million per mile. Hey why not. It will create jobs and the government will only have to steal from the taxpayers for 30 years, or until we can reach some level of efficiency....which is never.

If it is viable without taxpayer subsidy, I am all in. If not, then I'm out.
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4359
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby rgriff75 » Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:01 pm

I like the opposition, I wanted to see what everyone thought on sustainable energy. Okay here is another aspect, since we are going to continue to use oil, why are there so many spills? Just recently a spill in Lake Michigan. I have seen photos of the destruction it causes to neighborhoods and habitats. We have made such HUGE advancements in technology, but cannot figure out how to keep oil transportation under control? This is something that really confuses me.
rgriff75
hunter
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:16 pm

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:27 pm

That one is easy. Highly complex mechanical systems under incredible pressure occasionally fail. Not toss in flamable and explosive side products and you up the ante even more. Then take a system that is a few years old and has produced hundreds of thousands of barrels or oil and you have a worn system. When and how do you replace a piece of worn pipe at the bottom of the ocean 600 feet down> How do you even inspect for it? Now lets toss in human error, negligence, along with attention slips after doing the same thing 1,000 times.

Any system no matter how well built will have failures and problems Now take that one system and make it thousands. The real question is.... why do we have so few spills?
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6503
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:31 pm

Rat Creek wrote:If it is viable without taxpayer subsidy, I am all in. If not, then I'm out.

:thumbsup:

There are many ways to create de facto subsidies. Politicians are the masters of reverse engineering legislation and regulation to do the same thing in alternative ways.

BTW, everyone has heard and seen the massive expansion of wind power. So what fraction of our electrical energy, just electricity and not the other necessary energy forms?

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1
Despite the huge and obvious investment and massive number of windmills, currently it generations just 1/24th of our electrical energy needs. When the two additional units at the Vogtle nuclear power plant are completed, it would only take 4.5 nuclear power plants of similar size to produce the same energy as ALL of the 10's thousands of windmills combined. The same is true whether or not the power plant uses coal or natural gas.

Land use is a major environmental issue, which all the so-called renewable, except hydro fail miserable. The energy density is simply too low as demonstrated by Rat's example. They could easily put a small thermal power plant on the site and provide all of their energy demands if they chose to do so.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15933
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:51 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:That one is easy. Highly complex mechanical systems under incredible pressure occasionally fail. Not toss in flamable and explosive side products and you up the ante even more. Then take a system that is a few years old and has produced hundreds of thousands of barrels or oil and you have a worn system. When and how do you replace a piece of worn pipe at the bottom of the ocean 600 feet down> How do you even inspect for it? Now lets toss in human error, negligence, along with attention slips after doing the same thing 1,000 times.

Any system no matter how well built will have failures and problems Now take that one system and make it thousands. The real question is.... why do we have so few spills?

Easy answer is the human element.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56505
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby rgriff75 » Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:26 pm

I do like the nuclear energy side. Once we figure out a way to dispose of the used particles, we will make a strong switch to nuclear energy. The problem is disposing of highly radioactive material :help:
rgriff75
hunter
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 9:16 pm

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby boney fingers » Mon Apr 07, 2014 3:56 pm

I like solar energy systems, the ones where the sun picks up water and drops it in a reservoir where it is dropped and creates electricity. Too bad we never figured out how to do this efficiently :sarcmark: .
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:02 pm

rgriff75 wrote:I do like the nuclear energy side. Once we figure out a way to dispose of the used particles, we will make a strong switch to nuclear energy. The problem is disposing of highly radioactive material :help:



That problem was solved a long time ago and is a non-issue. It has been held back by the green agenda and irrational fear of the public due to fear mongering in certain circles. Ever hear of Yucca Mountain? Look it up and then research what Obama and his Obamabots have done to derail the project.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6503
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:03 pm

rgriff75 wrote:I do like the nuclear energy side. Once we figure out a way to dispose of the used particles, we will make a strong switch to nuclear energy. The problem is disposing of highly radioactive material :help:

The impediment to a solution is political and not technical.

The highly radioactive material is actually easy because it has the shortest half life and goes away the quickest and is therefore the easiest to contain.

Although the easiest of all is the material with the absolute longest half life, granted it never decays away, making it the hardest to contain. However, that is not a problem because if you ingest it, you will have decayed away long before enough of it decays to do you any harm.

Now, think about the toxic materials that are not radioactive. How long must we store them until they are no longer a problem? :huh:

Do the solar people lose sleep over these things? :no:

The real issue is fear and I believe it is insurmountable. The reality is that we have a tremendous amount of data from real world human exposure that prove that it is just not that dangerous. Nearly all the "harm" comes from people exposed below levels where any harm has ever been demonstrated. Don't get me wrong, you obviously can harm people. It just takes a tremendous amount of radiation to reach levels where it has been proven that there is the smallest of risks.

If you are worried about the radiation from nuclear waste dumps, you cannot live in large fractions of the U.S. because the excess radiation exposure from natural sources will dwarf what you would ever get living near a nuclear waste dump. The law is such that you can be forced to evacuate after a nuclear accident and move to somewhere where you will get substantially more radiation exposure.

http://www.ne.anl.gov/About/open_house/2012/Trying%20to%20Put%20Radiation%20Risk%20in%20Perspective_rev2.pdf

Obama illegally withdrew the license application for disposal.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324085304579010743875400898?mg=reno64-wsj
In re: Aiken County is another episode in the political soap opera about spent-fuel storage at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, an Energy Department project that requires the approval of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1983 requires that the NRC "shall consider" the license application for the repository and "shall issue a final decision approving or disapproving" it within three years of submission.


Mr. Obama promised to kill Yucca as a candidate and the Energy Department tried to yank the license application after his election. But an NRC safety board made up of administrative judges ruled unanimously that this was illegal unless Congress passed a law authorizing it. Mr. Obama then teamed up with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada to stack the NRC with anti-Yucca appointees.

Although Congress appropriated money to conduct the review, the NRC flat-out refused, in violation of the three-year statutory deadline. "By its own admission, the Commission has no current intention of complying with the law," writes Judge Kavanaugh, despite a 2011 ruling from a separate D.C. Circuit panel instructing the NRC to follow through. The ruling also invited Congress "to clarify this issue if it wished to do so."

Congress did not amend the 1983 statute. "As things stand, therefore, the Commission is simply flouting the law," Judge Kavanaugh continues. "In light of the constitutional respect owed to Congress, and having fully exhausted the alternatives available to us," the court had no option other than the mandamus writ.


boney fingers wrote:I like solar energy systems, the ones where the sun picks up water and drops it in a reservoir where it is dropped and creates electricity. Too bad we never figured out how to do this efficiently :sarcmark: .
Yes, but we are nearly tapped out. And who the hell wants to turn a beautiful free flowing river into a lake. Nothing wrong with lakes, but there are far fewer large free flowing rivers. Unless a reservoir provides much more value than just electricity, the harm is greater than the value. Most of those have been dammed already. They give us about 7% of our electricity. They are a great niche application and should be applied to those and have, but they don't get us where we need to be.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15933
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:13 pm

Duck_Stank wrote:Nature is like a cat. It can be pretty to look at, but it doesn't care if you're there or not.

:lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10741
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby Duck_Stank » Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:25 pm

I'm glad someone enjoyed that not so deep quote lol.
Master of Reality
User avatar
Duck_Stank
hunter
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:35 am
Location: Greenville, Pennsylvania

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Apr 07, 2014 10:24 pm

nitram wrote:by Dennis Prager

As I have often noted, the most dynamic and influential religion of the past hundred years has not been Christianity, let alone Judaism, the two religions that created the Western world. Nor has it been Islam. It has been Leftism.

Leftism has influenced the literary, academic, media, and, therefore, the political elite far more than any other religion. It has taken over Western schools from elementary through graduate.

For most of that time, various incarnations of Marxism have been the dominant expressions – and motivators – of Leftism: specifically, income redistribution, material equality and socialism. They are still powerful aspects of the left, but with the downfall of most communist regimes, other left-wing expressions have generated even more passion: first feminism and then environmentalism.

Nothing comes close to environmentalism in generating left-wing enthusiasm. It is the religion of our time. For the left, the earth has supplanted patriotism. This was largely inevitable in Europe, given its contempt for nationalism since the end of World War I and even more so since World War II. But it is now true for the elites (almost all of whose members are on the left) in America as well.

This was most graphically displayed by the infamous Time magazine cover of April 21, 2008 that altered the most iconic photograph in American history – Joe Rosenthal's picture of the marines planting the flag on Iwo Jima. Instead of the American flag, the Time cover depicted the marines planting a tree. The caption on the cover read: “How to Win the War on Global Warming.” In other words, just as German and Japanese fascism was the enemy in World War II, global warming is the enemy today. And instead of allegiance to the nation's flag, now our allegiance must be to nature.

This is the antithesis of the Judeo-Christian view of the world that has dominated Western civilization for all of the West's history. The Judeo-Christian worldview is that man is at the center of the universe; nature was therefore created for man. Nature has no intrinsic worth other than man's appreciation and (moral) use of it.

Worship of nature was the pagan worldview, a worship that the Hebrew Bible was meant to destroy. The messages of the Creation story in Genesis were that:

1) God created nature. God is not in nature, and nature is not God. Nature is nothing more than His handiwork. Therefore it is He, not nature, that is to be worshipped. The pagan world held nature in esteem; its gods were gods of nature (not above nature).

2) Nature cannot be worshipped because nature is amoral, whereas God is moral.

3) All of creation had one purpose: the final creation, the human being.

With the demise of the biblical religions that have provided the American people with their core values since their country's inception, we are reverting to the pagan worldview. Trees and animals are venerated, while man is simply one more animal in the ecosystem – and largely a hindrance, not an asset.

On February 20, a pit bull attacked a 4-year-old boy, Kevin Vicente, leaving the boy with a broken eye socket and a broken jaw. Kevin will have to undergo months, perhaps years, of additional reconstructive surgeries. A Facebook page was set up to raise funds. But it wasn't set up for Kevin. It was set up for the dog. The “Save Mickey” page garnered over 70,000 “likes,” and raised more than enough money to provide legal help to prevent the dog from being euthanized. There were even candlelight vigils and a YouTube video plea for the dog.

The non-profit legal group defending Mickey is the Lexus Project. According to CBS News, “the same group fought earlier this year for the life of a dog that fatally mauled a toddler in Nevada.”

This is the trend. Nature over man.

This is why environmentalists oppose the Keystone pipeline. Nature over man. The pipeline will provide work for thousands of people and it will enable Canada and the United States to increasingly break away from dependence on other countries for their energy needs. But to the true believers who make up much of the environmentalist movement, none of that matters. Just as they didn't care about the millions of Africans who died of malaria as a result of those environmentalists' efforts to ban DDT.

One of the fathers of the green movement is James Lovelock, the scientist who originated the Gaia hypothesis of the earth as a single living organism. This past Sunday, the British newspaper, the Guardian, reported that, “Talking about the environmental movement, Lovelock says: 'It's become a religion, and religions don't worry too much about facts.'”

He also told the interviewer “that he had been too certain about the rate of global warming in his past book … that fracking and nuclear power should power the UK, not renewable sources such as wind farms.”

As G.K. Chesterton prophesied over a hundred years ago: “When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing – they believe in anything.”

Now it's the environment.

That's religulous.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10741
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby Rat Creek » Thu Apr 10, 2014 4:23 pm

I will hand it to the left though in that they do create terms that sound so pleasant, like sustainable energy. Sure, it is sustainable as long as you keep strip mining the earth for metals and materials by which to build those giant windmills and solar stations that will never create enough energy, so you must strip mine some more. Is that what sustainable is? You must "sustain" a strip mining operation to keep building structures that produce next to nothing.

Just a good thing there is enough diesel fuel available to run those strip mining operations. :sarcmark:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4359
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby Duck_Stank » Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:53 pm

Very true rat creek. All while they use just as much if not more resources as we do, all while saying they want to save the world and environment. Chuck spears and wear animal skins, then I'll considerate it.
Master of Reality
User avatar
Duck_Stank
hunter
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:35 am
Location: Greenville, Pennsylvania

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby SpinnerMan » Fri Apr 11, 2014 5:42 am

Rat Creek wrote:I will hand it to the left though in that they do create terms that sound so pleasant, like sustainable energy. Sure, it is sustainable as long as you keep strip mining the earth for metals and materials by which to build those giant windmills and solar stations that will never create enough energy, so you must strip mine some more. Is that what sustainable is? You must "sustain" a strip mining operation to keep building structures that produce next to nothing.

Just a good thing there is enough diesel fuel available to run those strip mining operations. :sarcmark:

It's very much like the idiot that said nuclear would be too cheap to meter. He assumed all the cost was from the fuel and the fuel cost for nuclear is extremely low even today. They assumed that all the environmental impact and "sustainability" comes from fuel consumption. You have to look at the life cycle of all materials involved. Lot's of concrete and steel in all of them. Not exactly know for their great environmental record.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15933
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby Dingbatter 2 » Fri Apr 11, 2014 5:08 pm

God created nature and man uses it as a commode. Thus, we view God's creation like a big pile of crap. :hammer:

Heaven must be an empty place, because the only person I have ever known worthy of going there is my mom. Hi Mom! :hi:
"When I get to heaven, tie me to a tree
For I'll begin to roam and soon you'll know where I will be..."
Dingbatter 2
hunter
 
Posts: 1175
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:44 pm

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby Duck_Stank » Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:03 am

No dingbat, we view nature as a machine. We view everything as a machine anymore, think about it. Pieces we assemble to make a whole and better life. Nature is a machine to us in this day and age. Which I kinda like. Anyone know what the language of nature is?
Master of Reality
User avatar
Duck_Stank
hunter
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:35 am
Location: Greenville, Pennsylvania

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby Duck_Stank » Sat Apr 12, 2014 12:04 am

God said specifically to use nature and harvest, and that man is the ruler. Thus, our machine world view of nature.
Master of Reality
User avatar
Duck_Stank
hunter
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:35 am
Location: Greenville, Pennsylvania

Re: Judaism, Christianity, Environmentalism

Postby boney fingers » Sat Apr 12, 2014 4:38 am

Dingbatter 2 wrote:God created nature and man uses it as a commode. Thus, we view God's creation like a big pile of crap. :hammer:

Heaven must be an empty place, because the only person I have ever known worthy of going there is my mom. Hi Mom! :hi:


Sorry, but even your mother is not worthy of Heaven; however, by God's grace, she is allowed in. For those who feel man is destroying nature and are not just a complex part of it, I suggest leading by example and removing themselves from nature permanently.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 808
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Next

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests