"...Ecotheology is one of the principle tenents of the movement."
No, it isn't. It's a minor side-project mounted by people with environmentalist concerns *and* religious concerns, who want to marry the two together. It's like 'scientific Christianity' or whatever it's called - hardly a pillar of the scientific community.
The problem with your argument lies in your question:
"If you wanted to organize a “One World Government”, what would be the best way to go about it?"
This is an unrealistic aim, requiring insane ambition, so musing on how someone might go about it doesn't make for a strong case.
It's like mounting an argument that the US administration is a nest of Communists because, if you were a Communist bent on world domination, wouldn't the best way of carrying out your plans be to plant sleeper agents in America and have them acquire positions of authority, to the point where the rulers of the most powerful country on the planet are your puppets? Sure, maybe, so should we be worrying about that also?
You can't gather all the people of the world under ecotheology because most people - even advocates of environmentalism - will draw the line when it comes to religious activities like worship and faith - or, if they're already religious, at replacing their own beliefs with an alternative.
But then, you make allowances for this new religion of yours 'fitting in' with current ones by not replacing their tenants. That doesn't sound like a religion to me. When 2Lou started the thread, she was using 'religion' in the looser sense of a widespread belief (and resulting behaviours) that people don't like seeing questioned. Really though, this isn't a religion in the proper sense - we believe that killing other people is wrong, and act accordingly, but you couldn't accuse that of being a religion.
I'm worried that your reasoning goes along the lines of, "If it's widespread, or enforced by law, then it can be construed as a religion". In other words, you believe that if people *were* united around a cause like environmentalism, and laws were drawn up accordingly, then that is proof it has become a religious movement.
Yeah, I knew I was out on a limb with my last post. I suppose I can hardly blame you for cutting it off.
But if you’re going to have environmental laws, someone has to make them – someone has to enforce them. I think this was my line of thinking. The “what if” in my scenario just took that thought to the ultimate extreme.
But, if you can have laws that govern the whole planet and enforce them, then is that “what if” scenario really so far fetched? Maybe – but the U.N. would sure have a lot of power all of a sudden. I suppose it would fall to them. Don’t you?
"No, he (jc) isn't right, neither are you. It's a question of knowledge and awareness."
So you're a scientist then, right? We should have listened to you all along because you're a scientist? Not just some guy whose read a few articles on the subject?
"Perceptions drawn from a single source are rarely correct."
Yeah, because the rest of us just read one article in 'New Scientist'. In fact, yeah, all environmental legislation is based on perceptions drawn from a single source. How stoopid.
"If I can aggravate a smug twerp, I'm pleased to do so, just on principle."
Go find a smug twerp then and leave me alone, you cunt.
No, the United Nations have hardly any power at all - maybe that's a good thing, if it's an anti-christ authority it's not a very impressive one.
Enforcing laws across the whole planet seems more in the line of a certain Mr Bush, a truly dangerous fanatic with delusions of religious grandeur, brought into power largely by right-wing evangelical christians, and this makes me ashamed to be a christian far more than anything else at the moment.
Paul, your dispensationalist mates are always on the lookout for prophecies of the antichrist being fulfilled here there and everywhere - I've seen it being Europe and the Common Market, then Communism, then Islam, now environmentalism - where will it all end?? - but you fail to see plain ordinary wickedness under your noses when it puts on a pious face for the voters.
JC says:
*We should have listened to you all along because you're a scientist?*
No, I'm not a scientist, but of course, you should listen to me. LOL
neilmc says:
*Paul, your dispensationalist mates are always on the lookout for prophecies of the antichrist being fulfilled here there and everywhere - I've seen it being Europe and the Common Market, then Communism, then Islam, now environmentalism - where will it all end??*
Yes, your right - but some of them, I believe, have got it right. The Bible says certain things. We can point to this possibility or that one as a fulfillment, and be wrong. But that is, of course, only speculation. However, it doesn't change the fact that the Bible says it will happen - some way - some how. If you believe in the Bible (and you said you are a christian so I assume you do) then you have to believe that what it says will happen - will happen, even if we are not sure how.
*...but you fail to see plain ordinary wickedness under your noses when it puts on a pious face for the voters.*
Now who is speeking opinion as fact? And don't be ashamed. That's ridiculous.
"No, I'm not a scientist, but of course, you should listen to me. LOL"
Not you, Paul. Radiodenver. He's been taking the line that global warming is natural and nothing to do with humans for a while now (not the first time I've come across the idea - and I suspect the same is true of others) and he seemed mildly surprised that people pay more attention to the view when it comes from a different source. He'll be back here shortly to threaten to bitchslap me, or something more elaborate.
JC>"Not you, Paul. Radiodenver. He's been taking the line that global warming is natural and nothing to do with humans for a while now (not the first time I've come across the idea - and I suspect the same is true of others) and he seemed mildly surprised that people pay more attention to the view when it comes from a different source. He'll be back here shortly to threaten to bitchslap me, or something more elaborate."
I'm not a scientist either Jon-boy. I'm a retired engineer. I know as much about the subject as the next guy and probably 10 times more than you do. I wasn't "mildly surprised that people pay more attention to the view when it comes from a different source", I was amused, as like with most things in public debate, many people tend to sway on the breeze created by television radio waves, including some of the people that frequent these forums.
As for "something more elaborate", it would be a waste of effort (on you.) One doesn't need to kill cockroaches with a flame thrower. A simple bitch slap is all you rate. You still didn't say if those pimples cleared up though. I'm concerned, they could cause a nasty infection if you play with them too much.
Back to the debate at hand...Did humans cause global warming...I say no, it would have happened with or without us present. It's a political and commercial issue. It buys votes and sells books & advertising.
Visit me http://www.radiodenver.org/
'Yes, your right - but some of them, I believe, have got it right. The Bible says certain things. We can point to this possibility or that one as a fulfillment, and be wrong. But that is, of course, only speculation. However, it doesn't change the fact that the Bible says it will happen - some way - some how.'
I do not think anything you say here is unreasonable.
'If you believe in the Bible (and you said you are a christian so I assume you do) then you have to believe that what it says will happen - will happen, even if we are not sure how.'
Humph. See, again - you say 'if you believe in the Bible', but you don't specify what you mean by 'believe'. Because, to a PD, 'believe' means, as I said before, that every single sentence is morally and factually correct. But somebody can believe in the Bible but take a stance of 'Limited Inerrancy' or 'Biblical Infallibility' and believe that the Bible is correct on all moral matters but not on all historical ones. Many Christians adopt this second position.
I'll hold my hands up and say I don't really know the Bible very well (although I can claim to have read most of it) but to me, Revelations is just a very elaborate horoscope that, throughout the years, zealot after zealot has tried to apply to their current situation. Eschatology is a popular human obsession, but that's all the more reason to be circumspect, je pense. Paul, I think you'd do well to hold your fire when tempted to speculate that we may be living in the End Times - although, should you get Raptured off the face of the Earth any time soon, this miserable sinner would like first dibs on your PC, please.
* ...taking the line that global warming is natural and nothing to do with humans ... *
Jon, whether you agree or not, it IS a natural phenomenon that occurs quite regularly in the life of the planet. The scientific proof was illustrated and discussed in depth on that global warming swindle programme.
If human activity is to blame, as the 'greenies' would have us believe, through the use of cars, refridgerators, aeroplanes, blah blah blah, how come there was a rise in temperature in the 19ct? No cars or planes back then, nor fridges. It must be that humans farted a whole lot more?
I'm not saying that human activity is completely blameless, but the degree is disputable. As the old lady said as she pissed in the sea, 'Every little drop helps'.
*See, again - you say 'if you believe in the Bible', but you don't specify what you mean by 'believe'.*
Rokkitnite, give me a break will you buddy. LOL
I will repeat - the Bible says certain things will happen. For example: The Lord will return. There is going to be an end time. There will be a One World Government and a One World Religion. There will be a Tribulation period of seven years. There will be a period of time 31/2 years that will be called the Great Tribulation. There will be an Anti-Christ. There will be a period of 1000 years to follow it. God will destroy the Earth by fire. There will be a new heaven and a new Earth. To name just a few - there is much, much more.
These things "will" happen according to the Bible. Good Bible believing Christians can bounce all over the place trying to come up with the how's, when's and if's - should it be taken as literal or figurative and bla bla bla. Who is the Anti- Christ. What does the New Babylon mean - is it actual Babylon or is it Rome or United States and bla bla bla.
We can speculate and have fun doing so - but since there are a lot of different beliefs on the subject -most of them must be wrong, because there can be only one right answer to each question -I would think. But it still doesn't take from the fact that the Bible says these things will happen. You don't have to believe the Bible - I'm just saying I do. Christians do - they just don't see eye to eye all the time on the how's and why's or if some things should be taken literally or figuratively.
So yes, I have my thoughts on the subject as well - things I believe - but I "know" that the Bible says these things and I BELIEVE that these things will happen - some how - some way - some time.
I have reason to believe it will be soon. But you can say - "Are you sure?" And I would have to say - "No."
So believe smieve - get over it all ready.
Paul, your blind faith in your religion is very worrying. It's exactly that kind of faith that causes wars. The stuff you say is in the bible and 'will' happen is mostly the same stuff that Nostrodamus came up with and yet apart from a few cranks no one really believes he was a prophet. It's possible to interpret almost anything in a way that suits your beliefs, and the fairy stories in *your* book are no different.
Give us all a break from your religion, will ya. Whatever you think most people these days have survived the superstitions of the last two millenia and are now free thinkers, (excluding the fanatics in the middle east and Polynesia. Oh yeah, and there's quite a lot of them in the deep south USA). The UK IS, (in theory), a christian country, but in practice generally we don't give a shit.
"As for "something more elaborate", it would be a waste of effort (on you.)"
I see you've made the effort nevertheless.
"...how come there was a rise in temperature in the 19ct?"
Factories? Industrial Revolution possibly?
Jon, the rise in world temperature in the 19ct was just the most recent before the present rise. There were periodic rises of equal magnitude over the millenia. Are you suggesting that the iron age and bronze age activity of humans was a possible cause of earlier rises?
The evidence almost proves the link between activity on the Sun and rising temperatures and other climatic changes as being the likely culprit. Nothing humans can do will make much if any, difference to the future of the solar system.
It's a great way of convincing people to part with more cash though.
"Are you suggesting that the iron age and bronze age activity of humans was a possible cause of earlier rises?"
The impression I have (and yeah, this is just based on what I've read and seen, and you can say that what you've read contradicts it or whatever) is that while these cycles exist, the rise over the last century has been far in excess of previous ones.
To say that the Earth's climate changes doesn't explain it away. It also just doesn't make sense, whichever way you slice it, that our activities over the past century have made no difference whatsoever. You can *see* the smog - you don't need scientific evidence to have a direct personal awareness of how human activity has changed the world. And you're saying, "Well, that probably isn't actually very important." When you can see the damn stuff over cities? When it's practically impossible to see any stars on the London skyline?
The whole global warming itself is just a part of it - it's only become such a big, central issue because it's the one thing everyone's starting to notice, and can no longer put to the back of their minds - you've got to either explain it away or accept it. The one thing you can't do, increasingly, is ignore it.
But even if (and it's still a big 'if', no matter what we may want to believe) global warming, as it is, has nothing to do with us whatsoever, that *still* doesn't discredit environmental legislation.
* ...the rise over the last century has been far in excess of previous ones. ....*
Well no Jon, actually it hasn't. The last 'bout' of high temperature exceeded the present level, or so the scientists say.
The smog you mention was very visible and quite nasty back in the 50's, but it was only a 'local' phenomenon, centred around several large cities, the worst being London, Birmingham and Los Angeles. It appeared far worse than it actually was because those places have high population densities, (which of course was why the smog was there in the first place). That problem was 'fixed' by legislation to curtail coal burning in favour of smokeless fuels. It was highly undesirable obviously, and maybe a threat to the quality of life itself in those locations, (there were some deaths from pollution I seem to remember), but on a global scale it was relatively unimportant.
The so called 'lack of stars' on the London, (or indeed any major conurbation) skyline is, as I'm sure you're aware, due to artificial light pollution, and not really to do with global warming at all, (though I guess the electricity generation to fuel the lights must result in some crap being exhausted into the air).
* ...it's only become such a big, central issue because it's the one thing everyone's starting to notice, and can no longer put to the back of their minds ... *
It's become a big central issue because it's fashionable to have a 'cause', and vested interests have clued in that there's no better way to get the attention of the masses, and to scare them shitless into parting with increasingly large sums of money, than to instill fear for their lives into them.
It's not a case of 'explaining it away', respected scientists disagree on the causes, but even they have vested interests, they are no more impartial than the rest of us.
This planet is far more able to look after itself than humans give it credit for. It's another example of human arrogance to think that'we' can change the universe or any part of it. This earth will be here millions of years after humans are extinct, (and I've no doubt it will breathe a sigh of relief at our demise).
However I embrace environmental legislation whole-heartedly, but I believe it's sometimes misplaced and that certain important issues are given less publicity, mainly because the evidence and results aren't right under our noses, (the daily carnage wreaked on the forests of South America don't make regular news bulletins).
What would make more sense ecologically than penalising travellers would be to call a halt to the destruction of rain forests, (trees absorb CO2 and emit O2, ie. plants are necessary for humans to be able to breathe), banning unnecessary packaging, banning all junk mail world-wide, and forcing emerging economies to be environmentally responsible. The worst offenders on the planet at the moment are the Chinese, and they will become even more virulent as they progress.
The way to deal with carbon emissions is to develop methods of transport that don't burn oil products, but I guess the oil and motor industries would fight against that with all their considerable might.
Another major problem in my estimation will be the continuing meddling with nature by genetic 'Frankensteins' who have no way of knowing what 'monsters' they are producing, or how to control or reverse the things they do if it becomes necessary . I'm far more worried about those maniacs than I am about oil pollution which at least has finite possibilities.
Man oh man! You guys, from global warming to saving the rain forests, have really bought into it. When the governments of the world raise our taxes and band together to force more laws on us and gain more and more control over our daily lives, it will be sheeple like you, who will be as much to blame because you could so easily be fooled. What's next? Regulations on the kinds of foods we are allowed to eat? The kinds of speech we will be allow to listen to? You are handing over your rights (and everyone elses too) - willingly.
Man oh man! You guys, from smoking contributing to cancer to women's rights, have really bought into it! Not like me! No one's ever used the Bible to make money or control people! Regulations on what you can eat and what you can say? NOT IN TEH BIBEL GUYS!
Look how quickly someone jumped on me because I am not willing to turn over my rights. I'm not forced to do anything by the Bible - but governments, legislators, courts and probably even guns will force me to obey the laws you are so willing to have enacted. Just like the smoking laws - you, as a 'good' citizen of the planet Earth, would probably turn me in to the authorities the moment you notice me breaking one of these sacred environmental laws.
All hail the supreme Mother Earth, to whom all allegiance is owed.
The difference, of course, being that rokkit's link was written by a professor of oceanography at MIT while yours was written by a PR adviser.
For every link you produce written by a layman I can *write* ten more contradicting it. (and I once did a basic meteorology course - so there)
Paul, you're getting crankier and crankier by the minute. We live in a liberal, secular democracy where religious laws (e.g. making gay sex a crime, forbidding Sunday trading, making contraeption difficult, censoring writers - remember this is a writing site) and so on have largely been repealed. On the other hand, there is NOTHING I want or ought to do as a Christian which is forbidden in Britain. Our church now has a "green group" looking at environmental issues and how we can save energy and recycle, and we're a normal evangelical Anglican church not a mother-earth cult.
If the Bible encourages us to squander our resources and behave with selfishness towards the poor and future generations, then it should be thrown into the recycler with the compost. Fortunately, it doesn't - stewardship is a strong theme in the New Testament and whaetever the issue of global warming it makes sense to be environmentally aware.
“Our church now has a "green group" looking at environmental issues and how we can save energy and recycle, and we're a normal evangelical Anglican church not a mother-earth cult.”
Umm… not so normal – sorry. Maybe in England. If so – God Bless America.
Share your state secrets at...
http://www.amerileaks.org
Pages