I posted this on the ‘Mass delusions’ thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8121):

_____

As I keep harping on, on this forum, we MUST achieve a sustainable society, and quickly. The alternative is simply a huge crash event where the rule of law collapses and food supplies and other vital resources become impossible to obtain for a large part of the populace. Many die and most survivors have their quality of life very greatly reduced. Or a scenario of that sort.

It befuddles me so extremely as to why religions don’t embrace the absolute necessity of a sustainable lifestyle that is in balance with the environment and resource base. The concept of sustainability just seems like the most worthwhile basic religious philosophy of all….especially in a time of such rampantly unsustainable human behaviour.

Why hasn’t Christianity or a branch of Christianity or any other major religion embraced this? Why haven’t people banded together and started a new religion in the absence of anything from the major religions?

It seems to me that all religions are fundamentally missing the most important point of all here…that we as all sorts of societies around the world and as a species need to survive, and in harmony with our surroundings, and with a decent quality of life.

In fact, I need to ask; what the hell are religions doing if they aren’t addressing this point?
_____

I was quite amazed at the extremely poor response. It gave me the impression that the religious posters on this forum are either not interested in sustainability or cannot counter the fact that their religion is not sustainability-oriented, or both.

Why hasn’t Christianity or any other major religion embraced sustainability?

I think it's the old dominion thing, Ludwig.

And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." (Genesis 1.28)

Indeed, Ludwig. I've asked similar questions of our Christian contingent at OLO, and been similarly disappointed in the responses.

However, I know quite a few Christians in the Greens, so it doesn't seem that a religious disposition and ecological sustainability are mutually exclusive. On the bright side, and American evangelical leader had talks concerning environmental stewardship with PM Rudd and addressed a national parliamentary "prayer breakfast" (whatever that is) a couple of weeks ago:

<< PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd will hold private talks tomorrow with an American evangelical leader and lobbyist who preaches that inaction on climate change is an offence against God.

The Reverend Richard Cizik arrived in Australia yesterday on a seven-day tour to spread God's word about saving the planet.

Mr Cizik said there was a strong biblical mandate for humans "to watch over and care for" earth's bounty and creatures. "Australia and the United States have been major blockers to action on climate change and our new governments have a special responsibility in creating a new kind of leadership," he said. >>

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/pastor-says-ecofriendliness-is-next-to-godliness/2008/11/08/1225561201714.html

I suppose if our parliamentarians are going to have "prayer breakfasts", it's heartening to know that the environment is on the agenda.

Good Grief batman....

Ludwig says:

"Why hasn’t Christianity or a branch of Christianity or any other major religion embraced this?"

To which I reply "Why hasn't ludwig (and Bronny and CJ) done some READDDDDINGGGGG of Christian thought on this kind of thing?"

There is an element of common sense in Genesis 1:28 "Fill the earth and subdue it" does NOT mean ABUSE it. But I suppose those who look back now from the excesses of Capitalist abuse might find the Church to be a convenient whipping boy for their own flagrant abuse of the planet.

Hey.. the Hindu's are doing it "Maoist kills Hindu Holy man..Hindu's BLAME Christians anyway"...so...why not you mob?

Has NO one heard of the monastries dedicated to frugal living?

It is not the Church or Christianity which must be blamed for abuse of the planet but atheistic uncontrolled capitalism.

The Church in it's earliest example was socialist in nature. "They had all things in common and no one said what they had was their own but they gave each according to his need" Acts 2:44etc

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/ecology.html

So...let's ask "Who then is likely responsible for environmental destruction, and abuse of the planet"?

I can tell you who.. those who have embraced Gordon Ghekko's "Greeeeed is GOOD" mantra because they've first embraced Jean Paul Sartre's and Neitzchze atheistic existentialism.

If you have no divine frame of reference...and no sense of accountability to the Almighty...then why would you care about the planet ? After all its just atoms and molecules... all thrown together by chance.. why worry about succeeding generations? noooo..

Is that all there is, is that all there is
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
Let's break out the booze and have a ball
If that's all there is.

We all now know where that came from...don't we

"Why hasn't ludwig (and Bronny and CJ) done some READDDDDINGGGGG of Christian thought on this kind of thing?"

Polycarp, no amount of reading on this subject is going to counter the everyday in-your-face observations that Christianity is NOT embracing sustainability….and not by a bloody loooooong way. Sure, there are little bits of good stuff here and there….but some distant monastery espousing frugality is about as useful as tits on a bull!

“There is an element of common sense in Genesis 1:28 "Fill the earth and subdue it" does NOT mean ABUSE it.”

Huh? Fill the earth and subdue it is commonsense? Pfff!! In saying ‘subdue’ the earth, whoever wrote that rubbish may as well have said ‘abuse’.

"Who then is likely responsible for environmental destruction, and abuse of the planet?"

Well it certainly isn’t just the atheistic capitalistic ‘greed is good’ merchants. It is ALL of us, very much including the Christian fraternity.

Yes, you could argue that (most) atheists suffer from a lack of a sense of accountability to the planet. But I fear very much that Christians suffer much more from a lack of accountability by placing the duty of care in the hands of their god delusion… and hence feel that not only is there nothing they can do but that either god will take care of it…or the path to destruction is pre-ordained and simply has to happen.

The question remains: why isn’t Christianity embracing sustainability and being the leading religion in getting us all rapidly onto the right road to sustainability?

Ooow…maybe I just answered it in the previous paragraph ( :>/

Ludwig

Any biblical believer or for that matter any one else with a little common sense can see that you will never clean up the environment unless the heart of man is cleansed. The hypocrisy by the earth worshipers is a turn off as they masquerade with a self righteousness unmatched even by some church goers. They preach crap and then use pseudo science to back up claims. As I have said before just look at some of the ridiculous predictions made by Mr Gore and Mr Flannery.

If you were to open your bias eyes just a little you will see that many Christians pour a lot of money and resources into helping the less fortunate on this planet. People are our most valuable resource. Those on the left or right are not excluded from greed, lust and selfishness. If the environmental industry was not so morally corrupt then they might gain a little more support. They need to come clean on their social agenda (like the degenerate Greens) as well as use true science to be taken seriously. Much of the environmental industry are like some indigenous groups who claim to love the land and yet leave it in a putrid mess

Well..Luddy.. perhaps "Christianity" as you so loosely describe it... or more accutately "The Christianity which you choose to identify by certain characteristics..chosen by you" does not embrace 'sustainability' is the same reason many folks don't embrace the Lord Jesus and His teaching?

Genesis 1 "Subdue" is clearly meaning "control for your benefit"..NOT "control it to the point of self destruction" that idea is a double 'duh'.

Let me put it differently:

Jesus said
-"Blessed are the meek"
-"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness"
-"Blessed are the peacemakers"
-"Blessed are the pure in heart"

How are you going (all of us) compared to that checklist?

I can guarantee one thing..if we all went by that Checklist daily, we would be avoiding 'GREED' and embracing 'CARE'.. of our fellow humans and also our planet.

I think what you REALLLY mean is "Why arn't the select few manifestations of 'Christianity' that I've chosen for my biased article doing what I want to show they are not doing for the purposes of my biased article" :) so ner.

Still, having said all that, ultimately I speak for myself, and I'm sure that the 'Church' in general can benefit from a greater focus on how the Lords words should be applied to this important issue.

There you go Luddy... your calling.. offer yourself to the Churches as an "Itinerant Mr Fixit for the worlds ills" then you can rant and ramble at them about how selfish and irresponsible they are..and explain how wonderful you are :)

Religions don't embrace sustainability because at their heart they are essentially selfish and self-serving -

1. They believe Man is unquestionably at the centre of the Universe and everything has been provided for his exclusive use.

2. This existence in transitory. It's really the afterlife that matters so the only value in this life is to qualify for the next level. This life and everything in it is just a means to an end.

3. The cargo-cult mentality of an all-seeing, all-providing overseer who will fix everything (If it's His will - if not, it's part of a Divine Plan).

4. It's the survival of the religion itself that matters, plus what it offers the individual. Religions never take a backward step or surrender turf for the greater good of anyone.

5. Most have a concept of some sort of final rapture or Armageddon which will end up trashing the planet (along with the unsaved) anyway, so why bother.

It's always just around the corner, so party-on dudes!

You can ramble on about wickedness and greed all you like, but one of that factors that I think Ludwig is alluding to is that a great percentage of Christianity do not allow women control over their own reproductive biology. To be fair, some do but they aren't in the majority of the hierarchy of either the Catholic Church or any of the fundamentalist churches/sects/cults floating around. To be also fair Christianity is not the only religion that fails to acknowledge this majorly damaging policy.

In the end, it comes down to allowing humans to trash the planet by overwhelming reproductive success, just so that a few souls can be saved. While this seems an inherent contradiction, I would say "welcome to religion".

Christian Faith and sustainable living.

An unfortunate oxymoron given the basic tenants of the devout Christian:

"The sixty-six books of both the Old and New Testaments comprise the inspired Word of God and are without error in the original writings. The Bible is God's complete written revelation for the salvation of man and is the final authority regarding Christian life and faith.


There is one uncreated eternal God, eternally existent in three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh, was born of a virgin, led a sinless life, died on the cross and rose again bodily on the third day. Because He ever lives, He alone is our High Priest and advocate.


All mankind is sinful by nature. This condition makes it impossible to earn his exaltation through good works. Good works however, are a by-product of saving faith, not a pre-requisite to be saved.


Mankind is saved by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Believers are justified by His shed blood and shall be saved from wrath through Him.


Christ's Church is made up of individuals who have recognized their lost state and placed their trust in the redeeming work of Christ for their salvation.


Jesus Christ will return again for His own. All true believers will reign with Him throughout eternity.


There will be a bodily resurrection of both the just and the unjust; the just to everlasting life, the unjust to everlasting damnation."

Nothing here about caring for the earth that sustains us. My question is, can the people who live in the real world get on with making our lives sustainable and ignore the self obsession of the fundamentalist religious?

"But I fear very much that Christians suffer much more from a lack of accountability by placing the duty of care in the hands of their god delusion… and hence feel that not only is there nothing they can do but that either god will take care of it…or the path to destruction is pre-ordained and simply has to happen."

Yes, Ludwig, I definitely think that's part of it. I fully agree with the points made by Wobbles and Fractelle too.

I also think Runner's statement that the 'environmental industry' might gain more support if it weren't 'so morally corrupt' is very telling.

Conservative Right wing Christians, in particular, wouldn't be seen dead lining up with the depraved, pot-smoking, dreadlock-wearing bunch of deadbeats that, in their eyes, constitute the environmental movement. They've railed against them so vehemently and for so long that they've painted themselves into a real corner. Now, as evidence validating the environmentalist movement's claims continues to mount, they find they've got nowhere to turn. Maybe the yankee evangelical, CJ referred to, might end up creating a respectable enough movement for Christians like Runner to put their names to.

The rest of us might have a worry though with those Parliamentary 'prayer meetings', and whether or not they were in fact being kept strictly to environmental matters.

Great work, wobbles.

Five succinct reasons why religion will never lead any environmental movement.

- religion is actually about the individual
- rewards are in heaven, not here
- it's all in the divine plan anyway
- religions fight for their own survival, not the planet's
- and then there's armageddon, anyway

Such style. Such economy.

Love it.

Pericles wrote:

"Five succinct reasons why religion will never lead any environmental movement.

- religion is actually about the individual
- rewards are in heaven, not here
- it's all in the divine plan anyway
- religions fight for their own survival, not the planet's
- and then there's armageddon, anyway"

Dear Pericles,

You have used the word religion when the statement you made applies only to Christianity and not completely even to Christianity.

Both Islam and Judaism do not think salvation is possible for an individual who remains apart from his or her community. Christianity has the social gospel which mandates involvement with the community. Many Christians accept that view.

The religions that fight for their survival are the missionary religions. Christianity and Islam. Other religions are prepared to accept those of different faiths. Zoroastrianism does not even accept converts although they are discussing a change in policy.

The concept of an afterlife is primarily a concern of Christianity and Islam.

The concept of a final battle or armageddon is as far as I know only limited to Christianity.

Interesting points there Pericles. (And David F)

- religion is actually about the individual

Partly, it's about the individual as part of the Body of Christ. One Body, many parts.

- rewards are in heaven, not here.

Nope.. it is about heaven, but here, we have the presense of the future in our hearts.. and there is something called 'redemption and lift'.. as our lives are renewed, so also are our circumstances..

- it's all in the divine plan anyway.

Does not negate our responsibility to be good stewards of the world.

- religions fight for their own survival, not the planet's

Quite a few myths there. "Fight"? meaning with weapons? Islam commands it, Christianity denounces it. (speaking only of the faith documents/founders here)

- and then there's armageddon, anyway"

Indeed it is.... and it's a lookin purrrrrdy close at the moment. But I and those I know are very interested in sustainable life.

David.. please look again about "The last hour will not come unless the Muslims kill the Jews"...THAT... is referring to an armageddon.

It does exist in Islam.. including the idea of the return of Christ. But Islams returning Christ will kill the Jews and break the cross.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/end_of_times_battles_in_islam.htm

The End of Times Battles in Islam:

The end of times battles will occur between the Muslims and the people of Gog and Magog who will consist of the bad Jews (Zionists today as we call them), and the Polytheists from the Trinitarian Christians who worship Jesus and the Holy Spirit beside Allah Almighty, and the idol worshipers from the Hindus and the Far Eastern Orientals.

Notice who GOG and MAGOG are ? It's u and me mate. (oops.. maybe not u as ur not a zionist right?)

These words from that same article are most instructive about Islam.

"As long as the Muslims are cowards and fear to rise up against their corrupted governments, Allah Almighty will never help them to regain their wealth and independence."

Notice the emphasis on:

-FIGHTING. (against governments)
-WEALTH.
-INDEPENDANCE.

Yep.. I can see "one world government" happening realllly easy Brian Holden.

Not entirely sure we are on the same wavelength davidf, although I definitely see where you are coming from.

Religion is about individuals in the sense that selection of a religion is an entirely personal choice, as is rejection of same. But I freely accept that I had in mind the theist religions when I endorsed wobbles' approach. It is a form of supreme arrogance, in my view, for anyone to consider that a deity has the slightest interest in the individual. In doing so, they resort to meaningless mumbo-jumbo...

>>...it's about the individual as part of the Body of Christ. One Body, many parts.<<

And are you sure about this?

>>The concept of an afterlife is primarily a concern of Christianity and Islam<<

Interesting. I thought the concept was almost a prerequisite.

david f,
My comments were actually directed at the major religions because they seem to be the ones making all the noises and trying to call the shots - socially and politically.

Reincarnation is another version of eternal life and may take many turns of the wheel while the other just fast-tracks you to your ultimate reward.

Eternal life must be prerequisite - otherwise there's no payoff and simply no point. Why be a member if there are no benefits?

It's the ultimate act of self-interest and borne out of personal fear. It imposes a phoney morality because one does the right thing, not for it's own sake, but for your own.

Notions of the "end times" have been with us for millennia -in many religions and cultures - and we are always "closer to them than than ever before" -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_times - and Apocalyptism has always been a popular cultural fascination, probably because it may be seen as a no-fault end to one's personal suffering.

It's like a "hurry, last chance to buy - don't be left out" sales pitch.

I could be selling Immortality Pills on the Internet and offering a money-back guarantee if they don't work.

I think the only belief systems compatible with sustainability are the primitive native ones who treat the earth as a living thing and believe everything in it to be sacred.

The contrast between Polycarp and runner is very interesting.

Polycarp supports the notion of sustainability and good stewardship of the Earth and reckons Christianity is right into it. But runner just seems to completely reject it, passing off leading environment-awareness advocates like Gore and Flannery as fruitloops, and the whole environment movement as being morally corrupt!

Runner, what do you think of Polly’s stance?

Polly, is your old buddy completely off the planet or does he have some credence?

Hi Ludwig.

I don't see Runner or my own position as being at odds at all.

Runner says:

"Any biblical believer or for that matter any one else with a little common sense can see that you will never clean up the environment unless the heart of man is cleansed."

I totally agree with this!

Then he says:

"As I have said before just look at some of the ridiculous predictions made by Mr Gore and Mr Flannery."

Well.. Luddy.. you should ask Runner exactly which ridiculous predictions he means..THEN you would have a basis for evaluating his statement.

I'm sure there are some very emotive and 'fruitloopy' things said by Flannery and Gore.. after all..they are in the "raise funds/get a name/build an empire" business are they not ? :)

Runners point is...that you can speak about environmental responsibility too that proverbial MOOOOOOOooooo happens..in the evening...but unless you fix the PROBLEM rather than the SYMPTOM...(human greed) you are wasting your time.

I totally concur.

Runner=Polycarp=Runner :)

Ludwig is this for real? Peddling your apocalyptic visions by appealing to the deluded and the over or under imaginative. Fundies United?

"the necessity of a sustainable lifestyle that is in balance with the environment and resource base".

I suggest we use 1800 as our Base Year, before significant rises in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

I agree we need to develop non polluting, highly efficient energy sources, but reject the tone of the Green fundy movement.

You'd do better with your time pressing governments on their failure to see gas utilised widely for short and medium gain, and why at this time govts. are doing everything they can to abdicate from their 100 year old responsibility for power production?,and why they are not pouring more money into solar, geo-thermal? etc.

If climate change is the bushfire you claim, don't waste your time with people in conversation with the burning bushes.

Well I hope you’re right Polly. But it seems as though runner is fairly and squarely lambasting the whole environmental movement kaboodle, knocking the very notion of climate change and being just totally disinterested in sustainability.

I get the feeling that he is one of those ‘god’s got it all under control’ type of Christians who feels that it is not humanity’s role to even try to sort out its own mess!

Runner, whadayareckon?

Palimpsest, I think that there is a lot of merit in appealing directly to Christians and indeed to religious people of all persuasions, to grab hold of the concept of sustainability and get stuck into addressing it.

They do afterall constitute a large and strongly principled section of our society, as opposed to a total admixture of principled and unprincipled non-religious people. They are also far less inclined to be greedy or self-centred, I would think.

So, there should be no reason why they can’t embrace the concept that our society and environment are in a pretty precarious state and that the life-support systems and the demand placed upon them simply MUST be brought into line.

Polycarp; OLO’s No.1 darn good Christian, is right onside.

With the help of people like Reverend Richard Cizik, who espouses very much the same sort of thing as I do, from a highly authoritative position within the Church, Christianity in Australia (and the US) might just see the light….and pretty soon….I dearly hope.

That would go a heck of a long way towards swaying the whole population over to appreciating the urgency of addressing genuine sustainability.

But at the moment, I think that Christianity is actually holding us all back by effectively not dealing with the big picture of balancing all things human with our environment and resource base.

Ludwig,

You ask whether it is strange that Runner and Polycarp differ in their views. I don’t see why they shouldn’t.

These ‘sustainability’ issues that you talk about involve complex and forever changing scientific evidence. Is the atmosphere warming? Are the oceans cooling? In the 1970s the prophets of doom were predicting global cooling. Now the Jeremiah’s are saying global warming (after arriving at their ‘sustainability’ conference on jet aircrafts that pumped truck loads of carbon gas into the air). Runner is sceptical of the scientists who are possibly caught on a bandwagon mentality, while Polycarp reminds us of the original Biblical mandate that mankind was supposed to act responsibly in looking after his patch.

A more interesting question could be why you think Christians should be taking the lead. Why should Jesus’ followers be the one’s out front? Why are you looking to him? Do you want to be one of his followers too?

DGay Dan

Polycarp’s and runner’s views seem to be poles apart. Surely within the Christian faith they can’t be as far apart as they apparently are?

I’ve exhorted runner to respond numerous times, but he happily posts away elsewhere on OLO and just ignores me. That serves strongly to reinforce my feeling that his views on sustainability and environmentalism are very negative and totally different to Polly’s.

I’m willing to accept that “Runner=Polycarp=Runner” as Polly puts it, if runner would just make some sort of effort to corroborate that.

“…why [do] you think Christians should be taking the lead”

I think I explained that in my opening post. It is centred on the premise that Christianity is surely supposed to have the best principles for the betterment of humanity right at the core of its being….and that a lack of effort in addressing sustainability surely sits at stark odds with this.

So as a matter of principle, Christianity, Australia’s leading religion, should be taking the lead….or at least be fully supporting the urgent push for our government and society to refocus away from the absurdity of an economic and political doctrine that is predicated on continuous expansionism and towards the sacred humanity / environment / resources balance.

“Do you want to be one of his [Jesus’] followers too?

No. I just want Jesus’ followers to live up to one of their most basic and important principles; that they strive to see that mankind acts responsibly in looking after his patch. It’s as simple as that. Currently that is not happening by a million miles. And Christianity doesn’t seem too concerned about it.