Re: The greatest challenge facing mankind

From: janice matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon Sep 26 2005 - 18:44:05 EDT

At 05:30 PM 9/26/2005, George Murphy wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>janice matchett
>To: <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com>George Murphy ;
><mailto:asa@calvin.edu>asa@calvin.edu
>Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 12:48 PM
>Subject: Re: The greatest challenge facing mankind
>
>At 11:07 AM 9/23/2005, George Murphy wrote:
>>There's a fair amount of truth in what Crichton say: I think that all
>>responsible environmentalists recognize that there are extremes to the
>>movement.
>
>## Responsible stewardship of our environment has always been a priority
>for those whose conscience is constrained to put into practice the
>admonishments in what they consider to be the "Word of God" which they
>look to as their "only" standard. No other "laws" are necessary for such
>people.
>
>Only those who adhere to the man-centered religion would attempt to
>enforce their personal conscience on others so as to attain utopia (their
>brand of it). Some of these totalitarian, elitist mentalities are
>professing Christians, too. Moral busybodies (the politically/religiously
>correct), never grow tired of tormenting people - attempting to force them
>to "do what's right" - because, as C.S. Lewis so accurately stated, "they
>do so with the approval of their own conscience."
>
>Like C.S. Lewis, our Founding Fathers had their number, too. God, through
>them, set up "we the people" to be king -- the only "bottoms-up"
>government in the world -- where the citizens are in charge through their
>elected representatives, and where it is impossible for any tyrant to
>obtain absolute power and control.
>
>Only tyranical mentalites call our Constitution a "living document" and
>they are untiring in their attempts to destroy its purpose -- as
>protector of absolute (self-evident) truth. It is a meaningless document
>otherwise.
>
> All activist "movements" eventually become infiltrated and then taken
> over by extremists / radicals, who, because of the zealotry they exhibit
> for "the cause", are allowed by the lazy and complacent to take the lead
> (since they are so "eager to do the work"). Once their cover is blown
> and people become aware of their real agenda (read, ACLU, EPA, Serria
> Club, "Progressive" anything), they just move their operations and
> continue to hide behind the skirts of benign-sounding re-named
> organizations. Radicals don't go away.
>
>Other than repetition of the word "responsible" I see no relevance of this
>to the sentence of mine that you quoted. Did you mean it to have some
>connection? Or was it just catharsis?

#2#2# Words mean things. Leftist elitists have their own personal,
politically correct idea of what constitutes "responsible environmentalism"
and those who disagree with their definition will have it crammed down
their throats if extremists can get away with it.

>You continued:
>What Crichton doesn't mention however is that there is also the other
>extreme which also has religious features - belief in the myth of
>unlimited progress. According to this myth there will always be the
>resources we need - or want - & we can't really do any serious damage to
>the environment. It's a religion that, more easily than the "deep
>ecology" extreme, can easily co-opt Christian language: God will make
>sure things are always OK if we just trust him.
>
>### Those who believe that the Scriptures are God-breathed and thus
>inerrant in the autographs - believe that God is a God of providence -
>that he created and sustains all that is - that he knows the end from the
>beginning - and that it is impossible for man to ever be able to figure
>out what he has done, is doing, and will do. Only one who embraces one of
>the various expressions of the man-centered religion would think that puny
>men can thwart God's will unless the arrogant elites step in to "save the
>planet", or some other such absurd ideas that appeal to those who actually
>think that unless God gets our help "we're all gonna die!!"
>
>
>The idea that God can't allow us to destroy or seriously damage our
>environment is a form of idolatry, the belief in a tame deity who will
>make sure we're taken care of if we just believe the right things. It's
>the same message preached by the false prophets circa. 600 B.C. who
>assured the Jews that God would not allow Jerusalem to be destroyed. The
>real prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel insisted that God could and would
>allow that to happen - and of course they were right. God's will indeed
>can't finally be thwarted. But God is so sovereign - far more so than you
>seem to imagine - that God could allow all the things that the
>accomplishment of his purpose seemed to depend on - even the things that
>God himself had established, such as the Davidic monarchy, the Temple and
>its cult, Jerusalem, and indeed the whole nation of Israel - to be
>destroyed and still have his will accomplished. God could allow all life
>on earth to be destroyed by some catastrophe and still remain faithful to
>his promises and fulfill his will.
>
>Just as you quote pious phrases about God, the Bible &c, the false
>prophets of 2600 years ago thought they could quote the words that God had
>given through Isaiah in the face of the Assyrian threat 100 years before
>as assurance that Jerusalem couldn't be conquered. And like you, they
>were wrong.

#2#2# I never inferred, nor do I believe any of the "God is not
sovereign" ideas that you attribute to me above, therefore I see no
relevance of this to the paragraphs of mine that you quoted. Did you mean
it to have some connection? Or was it just catharsis?

>You continued:
>
>OK, to that extent there's nothing wrong with the thrust of Crichton's
>talk - though of course a lot of the details can be debated. But in the
>present political and cultural climate it's highly irresponsible to make
>such a one-sided argument. The heresy that needs to be attacked is the
>heresy that presents a clear & present danger & today, especially in the
>US, it's the myth of unlimited progress & the chainsaw & bulldozer model
>of "dominion" that's the real threat. I have in mind not just the views
>of the present administration (though that's certainly part of it) but the
>popular culture in which the Hummer has iconic status.
>
>An analogy: Pelagianism and Manichaeanism are both heresies & should be
>condemned by Christians. But when everyone is flocking to Pelagius, it's
>irresponsible to devote much time to criticizing Mani. ~ Shalom George
>
>### Religious extremists in the right-wing "utopian" Reconstructionist
>"movement" are merely the flip-side of the religious extremists in the
>left-wing "utopian" environmentalist "movement".
>
>Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Gary North, and the rest of the "Dominionist"
>screwballs who actually think that they will be doing God a favor if they
>can ENFORCE "The Government of God" - a theocracy - on earth.
>
>But they have the same problem as other tyrannical mentalities
>have. They will have to dismantle our Constitution to succeed - because
>it stands in their way, too - just as the Framers (who embraced the
>Biblical Worldview) intended.
>
>They understood that no man can be entrusted with absolute power over
>others because of the WEAKNESSES that are inherent in human nature. There
>are no "elites" who are exempt - all are subject to succumbing to weakness
>from time to time. And that includes the activist "men in black robes"
>sitting on the bench who think they should be able to ursurp the right of
>the people to make laws through their own state legislatures, and instead
>impose their own social / religious conscience on the rest of us.
>
>Again I cannot see how this is germane to what I said. If you really took
>seriously your own rhetoric about the Bible you'd want to talk about what
>"dominion" means in Gen.1:28 & in the larger context of scripture instead
>of shouting irrelevantly about the constitution.
>
>Shalom
>George
><http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/>http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

#2#2# A socialist's idea of the meaning of the word "dominion" in
Gen.1:28, etc., is different from a capitalist's point of view. Never the
twain shall meet. Capitalism is the only moral form of economic
activity. To wit:
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1352736/posts>In Defense of
Capitalism (Debunking The Religious Left)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1352736/posts

Janice
Received on Mon Sep 26 18:46:29 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 26 2005 - 18:46:29 EDT