Whatever one may attribute climate change to, I feel that it is part and parcel of the call of the kingdom of God for us to take care of the earth. That was the original assignment to humanity, and it is in line with the total restoration of God’s creation through Christ that the gospel contemplates.
It is ironic that fundamentalist Christians, those who claim to believe the gospel, are the least in touch with environmental care. Then again, it is an outgrowth of the theology that sees the goal of the gospel as an escape after death to heaven. If that’s the object, then the natural outgrowth is who cares about the planet, God is going to burn it up anyway. The problem is that this is a dualistic distortion of the gospel, a denial of the goodness of God’s creation, and a mistaken substitution of an individualistic, escapist salvation for the restoration of God’s entire created order, with human beings as the stewards of it, as the thrust of his kingdom announcement in Christ. it is a religious sanctioning of human irresponsibility.
If the renewed creation is what we will live in, and if we mean “thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” when we pray, then it is incumbent upon us to take care of God’s good creation now. As I’ve read, “Jesus is coming…plant a tree.”
C.E.'s comment about “FEAR” among members or prospect members
of Fundamentalist-type Religions.
Most of them preach ever burning flames of some type.
SDAs are only several of a few who see Hell in a different way.
SDAs provide “FEAR” in OTHER ways to its members and prospective
PERFECTION prior to Probation Closing.
LGT – Last Generation Theology
Disbelief that a new “carbon trading industry” (really just an exorbitant tax exacted by emotional blackmail on the highest order, globally) does not in anywise equate to a failure in stewardship of our created bounty.
Your comment to my accretion that Fundamentalists remind me of Climate change enthusiasts is interesting in that in my opinion you only partially correct.
Yes I believe that God has directed us to take good care of the Earth and use it for our benefit, however, like fundamentalist , Climate change enthusiasts have taken it to an extreme & have turned it into another religion & like the fundamentalist are using it to predict the end of time as we know it,
If I remember right, Christ told us no one knows when He is returning !
That was part of my point in my earlier post, Jack…the misguided eschatological scenarios that fundamentalists read into the Scriptures as they keep searching for the signs of the times. Jesus dealtwith such in his day, and it is not much different today, even if the reasoning behind such may be somewhat different.
With that said, I would take climate change fundamentalists over Christian fundamentalists anytime. At least the former take care of the planet. The latter promote a dualistic distortion of the gospel as an excuse for the support of politicians and policies that are basically driving the planet into the ground.
Hi my friend Frank, I was told my post were placed back. This one wasn’t.???
First of all by the strand topic, I think Theological definitions of “Fundamentalist”/Fundamentalism, Conservative and Liberal Theology would be useful. And show how Adventistism differs in theological ways from all three. Attempt to show those various theological beginnings and contents that differ and why.
Jumping to an aside topic which was started above, which was suddenly omitted from another strand over the weekend, I will bite. No one, definitely not me, is not interested in clean air and water in our micro environment! What happens with the global warming alarmist is they want to make us think the world will soon end because of anthrpogenic “global warming.”
So, I attempted to paste some comments by a responsible former NASA climatologist still in the field. Roy Spencer. http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/ 1
I also pasted an article in Ministry from 2001 showing the development of the “global warming” enthusiasts names and organizations that I believe add politico-socio-economic special interest to the work of science. And, I mention my interest in the micro-environment while registering my doubts of the Macro environmental beliefs.
I have been watching this grow for over 30 years. It ain’t “just about science”…trust me. It is the product of years of planning by think tanks from religion,economics, finance and politics with the hopes “of their understanding” of what would bring a global community of peace. In short , a view of intertwined globalism. Not a “conspiracy” but a common world view. “Global Climate Change” is a common needed catalyst. But, when Christ returns shall He find faith (in Him) on the earth…or an inclusive syncretistic spirituality?
There is nothing theologically “Fundamentalistic” about my article. That is simply a subjective deprecatory comment. The IPCC report and it’s Organization is simply held to be the “new gospel” by some.
Pat @Heceta @martinweber7
The move to “modernistic” thinking would have been even worse than veering to fundamentalism, in fact a catastrophe. One only needs look at the churches that did it. They are, as I have noted on numerous occasions. failing. We avoided that, but had problems with our approach. Some see fundamentalism in every crisis. It is a bit different than that, but of course if you are seeing things through the liberal lens, fundamentalism is writ large. Our problems are nothing compared to theirs. Modernism does kill a movement without doubt, as has been clearly demonstrated.
It is clear to me from reading EGW and from some of the posts above that she was not a fundamentalist as Haskell and Daniels seem to have been. She had balance in her view of herself, and willing to see herself not as inerrant, but a human as we all are, but with a special gift that we have surely benefitted from.
Those on the “modernist” side have no gospel at all. Since everyone is OK, no saving is necessary, so no gospel.
I find the comparison of fundamentalism and climate change alarmists interesting. Doesn’t AOC’s assertion that the world will end in 12 years sound kind of like a fundamentalist kind of statement? It’s a religion, don’t you think?
There are plenty of balanced Adventists who do not see the end in every assertion of the pope etc. There has been a change in society, more toward Sodom and the antideluvians. But that is just my fundamentalist ravings…
Well, thank you George! I read the whole thread, so no doubt allowed some other “fools’” thoughts to, what shall I say, er, ah, cloud my mind? Hmmm… That’s not it, enlighten was the word I was looking for.
Balanced Adventists, as you say, Allen, disagree with longstanding denominational theology, as seen in every Revelation seminar and the balance of Amazing Facts literature. The papacy is the boogey man, the Sunday law and the time of trouble are coming, watch for the signs.
That encounters a real problem with what Jesus said to the sign watchers of his day, and the thrust of his eschatological parables as well. Evangelicals, with their futuristic reading of apocalyptic and their end time dreams, are just as off.
This is fundamentalism, and is just as damaging as any distortion or even denial of the gospel.
Paying a carbon tax is not necessarily the best way of caring for the earth, and i suggest it permits carbon cap trading to enable continued pollution with abandon.
I can certainly recognize that God took care of the carbon problem before he invented humans. He created the trees first! Perhaps something as simple as planting a tree for each child-and for each death, would help educate people what the costs of our conveniences really are.
Clean water doesnt just come from a tap, anymore than clean air from a tax levied by a new “global business”. If we do not act locally on the micro levels where we have choice and consequence, no amount of macro solutions will solve the problems we face. Primarily we have an education problem, difficult to correct given our “easy answer” expectations that “government” (for profit)(in this case, WORLD WIDE) will fix (essentially what they created. for profit)
Carbon – doesn’t do any good for one country to “lower their emissions”
and 5 countries in the world not try.
Perhaps it might help those with COPD and those with other lung problems
[who are non-smokers] in that country. But that is all.
But, YES, ALL plants, big and small need carbon as the building block for their
Also, Ocean Waves capture CO2. The Oxygen is used by living organisms
and the Carbon drops to the bottom and creates OIL, as in Oil Production for
our use later.
The end product of Metabolism by humans and all creatures is CO2 and we
breath this out into the air.