Ethical living on earth

By Alexander Carpenter

Check out Jared Wright's thoughtful three point post on why stopping global warming is a moral issue.

Comments

[Bob Rigsby]

Jared, Alex:

Assuming you might be interested in some reaction from one whose views on global warming are, shall we say, less enthusiastic than your own, here goes. It is obvious that those in my camp, irrelevant and without evidence according to Alex, simply don’t post here. Which is maybe what I should be doing… Oh well… Here goes…

A few random questions and comments…

First, let me say I admire you energy and enthusiasm and conviction. Good things to have in a struggle against evil.

Is it general “Christian knowledge” exactly what the right global temperature the earth should be? I mean, what is the ideal temperature? Maybe in the days of Christ? What was the temp then? Maybe that information will help us...

From whence your certainty (realizing few things are certain) that the current rise in temperature is due to man’s activity? (and therefore the global thermostat somehow rests in our hands) If it is due to man’s activity, do you not have a teeny obligation to share with us the activities that humans 1000 years ago were engaging in that caused their warming crisis? (‘cause we better be sure to avoid those…)

And did you see the democratic “debate” where B. Hussein Obama, when asked what he is doing about global warming is said to have replied (no, I didn’t actually watch this show) “I’m thinking about changing my light bulbs”? (If that’s all it takes, do I get ‘credit’ for ‘thinking’ about more ambitious efforts?)

And Jared; is there a formula where I can figure out just how many miles I can drive in my SUV before you consider me immoral? I mean this is tough: for sometimes I’m called out in the middle of the night to take care of critically sick patients (you know, they are often poor people) but maybe I should reconsider driving (my SUV) in to do that...

That leads to my last questions -- and the only ones I really need for you to try to answer. If you feel like it. You have placed global warming, by calling it a “moral” issue, on a par with ending slavery; with ending apartheid; with the civil rights movement… Do you really mean to do this? Do you mean to associate your Christianity with this item which, for many, is nothing more than a political agenda?

Another angle on this question: this site will likely never have a post railing against abortion as a “moral” issue. But, you are of course aware that a great many Christians do consider it just that. And the reason (just a guess) is that those who disagree do so based on the issue of freedom of choice; freedom of conscience. But are truly “moral” issues really about conscience and choice? Do we get to chose which issues are, for us, the “moral” ones? (after all, it’s pretty much agreed by scientists that someone dies in an abortion. Or maybe some”thing” dies….)

So, if I disagree with your stance, will you still welcome me into Christian fellowship (you know, the “moral” kind)? And you have the perfect “out”; you allow me my own “freedom” to decide for myself. I’ll give you your passion, your freedom of choice; can you give me mine??

And, lest you think it cruel of me to be so cold regarding those suffering African’s who are starving… I grew up in Ethiopia. And this remains an indelible impression. Thousands of refugees - having fled drought and starvation -- camping out at the Adventist school south of Addis Ababa. And my mom makes us go down there so we would be aware of how good we had things. These folks had only what they could carry the 4 or 5 hundred miles of walking. And my mom made us chose things from our closets (pretty meager at that) to give to kids our own age. She made us pick out -- from the hundreds of kids -- to whom we wanted out gifts to go. Can you image Jared? I got three pairs of pants to give; yet hundreds of boys who need them? And she made us kids chose -- my three sisters and I…. So I’m kind of aware of Africans starving. And have been for some time now.

Anyway...

[Alexander]

Yes, it's moral. Because poor air, flooding, poor drinking water hurts real humans.

First, I recommend conservative Christian Matthew Sleeth's (MD) book about climate change, Serve God, Save the Planet. I'll post video of him tomorrow.

Your questions are valid and there are serious peer-reviewed answers. I encourage you to start answering your own questions at Nature's Climate Blog, where real climate scientists work through the reports and news and doubts with care.

This would not be of much concern if the WSJ wasn't such an influential paper in the US. However, the extent of its isolation on this issue is evident from the amusing reliance on the error-prone Christopher Monckton. They quote him saying that the sea level rise predictions were much smaller than in IPCC TAR (no they weren't), that the human contribution to recent changes has been 'cut by a third' (no it hasn't), and that the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) was written by politicians (no it wasn't - the clue is in the name).

Even more wrong is the claim that "the upcoming report is also missing any reference to the infamous 'hockey stick' ". Not only are the three original "hockey stick" reconstructions from the IPCC (2001) report shown in the (draft) paleoclimate chapter of the new report, but they are now joined by 9 others. Which is why the SPM comes to the even stronger conclusion that recent large-scale warmth is likely to be anomalous in the context of at least the past 1300 years, and not just the past 1000 years.

Here the link with their links to the studies.

If you are at the level of using Barack Obama's middle name Hussain to make some point about him being different, I'm worried. Where I come from, you call a man what he prefers to be called. He is no terrorist. And he's not from Iraq. Also, I don't judge my moral duty by what other people (leaders even) do or don't do.

On light bulbs I read this last night in the New Yorker: Studies have shown that even seemingly small conservation efforts can have a dramatic impact on the environment. Australia, for example, may soon require the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs, which expend seventy-five per cent less energy than incandescent bulbs. That shift alone is expected to reduce the country's carbon emissions by four millions tons every year. (There are forty-five light bulbs in the average American home; reducing that number by just one would be equivalent to removing nearly a million automobiles from the road." p. 123 May 14, 2007.

The info is out there. But if you think that the IPCC and most American climate scientists and biologists are part of some socialist conspiracy I can't help you out.

Don't worry about the SUV. You're doing good work. I'll bike a lil' extra to offset you, Christian brother. . . : )

[Bob Rigsby]

Well, you’re a good sport Alex, to chat with me like this.

Some reasons why this subject/conversation interests me...

I used Obama’s name in the same casual (and careless) manner that I believe he uses the global warming issue: that is, there is a connection between what one says he believes and what one does. So, when I see lack of action I also see lack of conviction -- on whatever the belief. This merely echos the idea that I’m more convinced by what I see you doing than by what I hear you saying. And that idea is very familiar to Christians of course. But that leads to a much larger point it seems to me…

The reason I mentioned abortion in connection with global warming is that it too is an issue which is very often seen as both intensely moral and intensely Christian. Except people who are both moral and Christian occupy precisely opposite positions on that issue! So my dilemma is this: to what extent does my passion about an issue as being both moral and Christian reflect on Christ? Logically speaking, we can’t really say Christ was both for and against abortion. We can’t say Christ would both be for and against homosexuality. We can’t say Christ would be supportive of both global warming activists as well as those who find the evidence murky and unconvincing. Yet Christ’s name, and morality, are associated with issues all the time!

And the issue is far larger than only this. We have Christians all around us who vary widely on the way they see scripture; can literalists and fundamentalists both be Christians?? Well, the reality is they can and they are.

The reason this interests me is that “outsiders” looking in see these apparent contradictions within Christianity and thereby minimize and disregard Christ Himself. To the extent that happens, it’s a problem for all Christians. So, do we bring people to the actions that we believe spring from our personal views of what Christ demands” of us -- OR -- do we bring them to the person of Christ and allow them to decide?

I guess maybe another way of asking this is; are we (you, me, everyone) guilty of holding our beliefs in ways that appear to make that belief (and the attendant actions such belief should compel) a “litmus test” for how seriously we think they are about Christ??

OK -- here’s another reason it troubles me in particular and poses such a real challenge. I’m of the conviction that God saves everyone (eventually). This means that I must embrace -- as both present and future neighbors -- every soul I come in contact with. Family -- brothers -- no one’s excluded. All belong. Except that -- man! -- I disagree with how knowing Christ allows/demands that particular belief/action. But this does not need to mean we are without standards (does it?) nor without convictions. So maybe (?) the conviction that will cause us to behave most like Christ is the conviction that all will be saved.

Anyway, you get the idea...

ps -- the way I know you get this is because of this...
"I'll bike a lil' extra to offset you, Christian brother. . . : )
very disarming Alex... Thanks

[Darius (statrei)]

Just one point about Jared's post. Global warming is not a moral issue. We would not be concerned about global warming if the human race was not at risk. We do not care whether temperatures are rising on other planets. The issue is survival, not morality. Come to think about it; all of what we do (good and bad) is about survival.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Darius asserts that "Global warming is not a moral issue." Is that not like Cain's retort to God: "Am I my brother's keeper?" If man's behavior is the cause of Global warming and Global warming is harmful to man, it is by definition a moral issue. Adam was given "dominion". The issue then is one of accountability--reference the parable of the talents. If we have been given much--much is required. Most assuredly Global warming is a moral issue if our behavior causes or contributes to it. Tom

[Elaine]

If the Christian right were more enthusiastic about promoting family planning and much less worried about abortion, there might just be a less populated planet, eventually. God said "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" but what after the earth is replenished? What then?

Bob, are you saying that God is never both for an against something; that is, if you believe Christ's actions are also his? What about "Thou shall not kill" and his many commands to kill entire nations? What about committing adultery and his orders to Hosea?Shall I continue? Situation ethics? Even the disciples' gathering grain was approved because of the situation, as was David's. Did God not condemn adultery? What was Christ's reaction to the adulterous woman? Is God consistent? Don't different situations call for different actions by everyone?

[Darius (statrei)]

Tom, why should we care about global warming save for the fact that it is a threat to the species?

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Darius:

I believe in a Creator God and a Redeemer God so I care about His creation and His redeemed. I believe I am a child of the King, thus I will use the kingly power of reason to be a responsible steward of His domian. Tom

[Bob Rigsby]

Elaine:
Soooo…. interpreting your first paragraph, it sounds like you are saying that if we allowed more babies to be killed via abortion, (read “planned parenthood”) there would be fewer around to die from starvation due our poor care of this planet? Actually a logical statement; though one would be hard pressed to decide exactly where the “moral” line would be…

And, while your questions are good, they are not the direction I was trying to go. I was referring to the law of non-contradiction in which two opposite positions cannot, in the same sense and time both be true. eg if I tell you my house is painted red, and a few minutes later you hear me tell someone else my house is painted blue, you would be correct to say I have violated the law of non-contradiction.

My point is that when others look on, they feel Christians are inconsistent and do violate that law. Why? because Christians disagree on lots of things. And in large part, the problem can be traced (it seems to me) to the fact that they tie their Christianity to their belief. So you have Christians who are both pacifists or support the war. Pro-life or pro-choice. For gay marriage or against.

Thus, along the same line, I think Dr Z is quite correct when he says to Darius:
“If man's behavior is the cause of Global warming and Global warming is harmful to man, it is by definition a moral issue.”
Logic dictates that since I don’t find it very conclusive that man’s behavior causes global warming (ie there’ve been lots and lots of warmings over the eons) nor do I agree that global warming is harmful to man (the last warming seems to have been a boon to many; rendering certain lands capable of producing crops! Further, this earth has always been in transition; it’s face has evolved and altered far more than the current meager, and by comparison, mild morphings. What men do, as intelligent creatures, is adapt.) then for me it is not a moral issue.

So my plea Elaine, is not to equate our own personal convictions too closely with Christianity because others, who are equally committed to Christ, come to the opposite conclusions. Yes; think and believe as makes sense to you. But no; don’t do so in ways that exclude the other from your fellowship. (eg: if global warming adherents tell me they are moral for doing what they do, that’s fine. Except that since I don’t do what they do, I am not moral. By implication. That’s a problem for me…)

In my own life I’ve been tested by how I can be supportive of both those Christians who support abortion, and those who march against it. (for example)

And Alex demonstrates true Christianity in this regard (it seems to me) -- that is, the kind which recognizes disagreements, yet remains convicted -- when he says to me (in essence) I realize you have not come to conviction on this issue Bob; so I’ll do my best to cover for you until you do. (which of course may or may not happen) (sort of like Job offering sacrifices for his children who may have forgotten, or just blown it off because of too much partying!)

Now, can you imagine what could happen if those who disagreed on (I’ll go back to this example) abortion? Those who believe keenly that it is wrong, would have such grace towards those who believe it is ‘ok’ to say “I can wait till you are convicted. We can fellowship together till then.” And it would work just the other way too. Both sides accepting that they can not declare Christ as their ally (alone) in matters of dispute and debated.

(As for your questions… Those who ridicule we Christians often do so because of those very things. eg the scriptural violence of a loving God. Just picked up Hitchens book GOD IS NOT GREAT how religion poisons everything and I’m rather sure he will use our own scriptures against us. He will talk about the contradiction of a loving God beating the hell of of those who challenge/disobey him. Isn’t it ironic that those who don’t claim to even believe in God tend to drive us to formulate better theology…)

[Elaine]

'Sfunny, Bob, that the mere mention of "family planning" is read "abortion." How about contraception? Is that not family planning? And it is NOT abortion, is it?

The major Christian church has ALWAYS been against contraception, and still is, though few practice it. Even in Africa where family planning could prove a blessing (NOT abortion), condoms are being resisted by many churches.

Please, do not confuse the two as one can certainly be against abortion but for contraception, can't he?

We'll argue pro-choice, pro-life another time.

[Bob Rigsby]

Uhhhhh Elaine...

Don't mistake my illustration of the point as the point.
My point had nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.
(but please: don't pretend that "planned parenthood" has nothing to do with abortion.)

I'd prefer to know what you think of the main point.

[Elaine]

Of course, there's no disagreement that something can be black and white simultaneously, if that is the contention.
But, can one be both good and evil at the same time? Is someone 100% of any characteristic? Are we not all paradoxical beings?

I can tolerate and appreciate all sorts of variety in a Christian community, and I do. That, however, does in no way imply that we are in agreement, only that we are tolerant of various positions.

What a dull world if we all were in agreement! I love the variety and unique perspectives of everyone--which is the best way to learn--and I have an insatiable curiosity about the world around me. There is so much more to know and so little time!

Your statement: "(but please: don't pretend that "planned parenthood" has nothing to do with abortion.)" seems a backhanded way of emphasizing your position, doesn't it?

There are many things in this world that one can be against, and yet, depending on the circumstances may be the lesser of two evils; e.g., divorce is bad? Not always, is it? Should it be outlawed? Would that alleviate the broken marriages? Or, if fewer people married there would be fewer divorces. Blanket statements NEVER cover all contingencies.

[Bob Rigsby]

Elaine:

Let me rephrase the question -- and the point I’m getting at.

When you hear a person advocate a certain position/policy -- one which you (strongly perhaps) disagree with -- and associate that advocacy with Christ (and Christianity and morality) might that not sound like they are demeaning, questioning, dismissing your commitment to Christ?

Thus, if one talks as if the only position on an issue for one who calls himself "Christian" is the one which they hold, he might actually hurt Christianity instead of helping it as he intends. Since so many hold such different, even opposite positions, yet do so in the name of Christ, might not the overall effect be an actual diminishing of Christ?

If “Ethical Living on Earth” is defined as doing X (see global warming agenda) then to not do those things could imply one is not ethical. Is that done intentionally? I think this dynamic is a huge problem for Christians. I picked the topic of abortion as an example simply because it is so fiercely contested; by Christians.

And we all know how this feels because we’ve heard our Adventist brothers tell us if we don’t (for example) toe the line on the Investigative Judgment then we should just leave. (or evolution or ...) We're not "real" Adventists. That’s not good for Adventism is my point.

[Elaine]

Bob, I suppose I'm insensitive to the term "Christian" as one of many labels individuals choose. It really means little and has little significance to what they say or do. If their actions equal their words, if they are kind and considerate, the label they wear means nothing: IOW, I don't care what people call themselves, only how they treat others. Does that make sense?

[Darius (statrei)]

The problem with the word "Christian" is that we have come to believe that there exists in the universe a concept called Christianity just as there is Chemistry and Biology science, and it is the responsibility of humans to correctly map it in their minds. We forget that the Christ is a recent development in the history of the universe so that their is no requirement that anyone be "Christian."

[Elaine]

There are probably millions of definitions for "Christian" so for someone to characterize an individual as being a "Christian" or not has little meaning. "The word means what I say it means" is applicable here.

[Bob Rigsby]

Let me see if I have this straight Elaine:

Are you saying that the state of affairs which so worries me (that Christianity risks losing it’s very identity because all it’s varied claimants disagree so spectacularly) is already here? That the claim of being a Christian -- even now -- has no meaning? Has no meaning because those who claim Christ don’t all agree? That if we keep the love and morality and ethics and kindness that many claim as the values Christ represents, but then delete Christ from our agenda and beliefs and we might have more takers? We might be more credible? That the human manifestations of the Christ are so varied as to render Christ Himself meaningless?

If so, if that’s what you are saying, I guess I have made my point!!

Christ then is an impediment to us; better to jettison His story and claims and get on with the business of struggling to reach higher moral ground... Moral ground to which God is calling everyone within the culture and beliefs they already have?

If that's the case, it would be pointless -- even detrimental -- to use Christ's name and ideals to support an agenda on global warming (for example)??

[Elaine]

Bob, because you have declared that you believe in universalism (do I read you correctly?), what possible difference could being a Christian have for anyone today?

Universalism is most appealing to me, and given the world we live in today, humanism: the belief that we are all in this world and we should not only respect our earth but each other and work toward improving the lives of everyone, is more in keeping with my sentiments than any particular religious denominations.

Is that clear to you? Please explain your philosophy on this topic.

[Arlyn]

Keep going- this is getting really good.

[Joselito Coo]

I appreciate the honesty and integrity bloggers exude. Of Elaine, in particular, whose own penetrating questions may sometimes intimidate. I've been following with interest in other threads as well her candid exchanges especially with Bob and Arlyn who are both clinicians. Thought I'd mention this as I've observed how resolute and adept they both were in eliciting pertinent information so we can get to the core and help us see the big picture as a backdrop for a question Elaine has raised repeatedly from way back: "Still waiting to hear someone say why I, or anyone should be a Christian, or an Adventist Christian."

Still part of the same query: "Should we not be able to offer the benefits and advantages of Christianity if we truly believe it is the only path to eternal salvation?"

Elaine's answers to her own questions so far, and I've not recorded this to pass judgment, saying whether she's right or wrong:

1) "Yes, the only way for our growth and the community to which we belong is in accepting each individual, realizing each one is on his particular journey and with the same goal in mind..."

2) "... when someone FIRST sees and experiences God's love through individuals (the only possible way) then he will be drawn to God out of love without fear."

3) "Having superior doctrinal knowledge is not the reason to belong to any group, IMO."

4) See above regarding universalism and humanism.

I'm sure Bob and Arlyn won't disagree with Elaine. Luke, who authored the Third Gospel and Acts, may have been a physician. Among NT authors who were mostly Jews, Luke was a Gentile and probably the most lettered in the Hellenistic tradition. In addition to a profound humanitarian concern (for the poor, outcast, the marginal in society), Luke's theology reveals an inclination to universal salvation. In contrast to Matthew for example, Luke traced Jesus' ancestry to Adam, son of God.

[Bob Rigsby]

Yes Elaine! I think we are tracking along toward some important truths together.

(But first of all, apologies to Alex for dragging this thread off in a different direction ….)

You are absolutely correct: I do find Universalism makes most sense (of the many and varied readings of scripture available) so you ask me precisely the question I ask of myself all the time! Where we differ, it seems, is that I see the Christ as the embodiment of all those wonderful values you seek to embrace; you see Christ (because of the wildly different ways His name is claimed) as a hindrance to those values.

This of course fits very well with the observations of people like Gandhi who says (my own paraphrase here!) “I like your Christ; it’s Christians I have trouble with.” So, in the trenches, the measure of Christ is the people who claim Him. This also fits in certain ways with the stuff our atheist friends are writing about now (see Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, Hitchens etc) where they too claim the high “moral” ground; the very sorts of values you have mentioned! (Hey! that’s not fair! Morality is our territory!) They face far more directly than do most Christians the problems inherent with accepting a God who is as violent as the God of the bible! And they say “we want none of it!” (Isn’t it ironic that the best most Christians can do is mutter something like “well, He’s God -- and God has the right to do that if He wants to.” -- In my estimation, that shouldn’t be nearly enough for a thinking person; a person concerned for God’s “reputation”…)

If Universalism is true, (I’m quite convinced it is -- for a growing number of reasons…) there are certain things that follow:
--it means God is already active in ways we scarcely comprehend -- drawing people everywhere to Himself;
--it means God doesn’t need a reason to forgive us -- He already has;
--it means we are all family -- despite the fact we so often don’t act that way;
--it means we can do nothing to cause God to love us more;
--it means I have a responsibility to act as maturely as my vision of God logically demands;
--it means all of us are on varying stages and places in our journey with God;
--it means that if I’m treated like crabgrass by another, it’s because they don’t yet grasp our brotherhood -- but “what is that to you? YOU follow Me!” I can do the right thing regardless if the right thing is done back to me.
--it means that certain ones might take advantage of Universalism and go ahead and do whatever the Gehenna they want; and thereby demonstrate they don’t get it, neither are they truly free.
--it means greater responsibility for those who do “get it” (sorta like Romans 14)

You get the idea; the list could be much longer of course…
But the point is, it was through my vision and conception of Christ that I came to see the truths above -- and only later made the connection to Universalism! So when I see images and conclusions that point away from these truths about God as seen in Christ! I am quite sure that Christ has been confused and distorted into something more of their own making.

So, for me, the best and highest and greatest manifestation of God (that is, what you are calling “humanism”) ever witnessed on earth has been the Christ. Anything less means He has been misunderstood, distorted, or totally missed. Thus, I really have little problem reading men like Hitchens as he rails against God; he protests the very same concepts of God that I protest. He does not protest against the Christ that I know.

But there is a puzzling dynamic which I think most seem to miss. Namely, when Christ is rejected because of the misbehavior of His followers, because of their inadequacies and thick headedness, logically that reflects on them and not necessarily on the Christ they serve. That would mean Christ can be no more than the sum of His followers. But Christians are the first to admit they are not perfect -- but fallen. So why base the entire reputation and validity of Christ on His admittedly fallen/failed followers? There is no such corollary for Hitchens. Unbelievers take such glee when some Christian leader has a spectacular public failing; of their own failings, they just shrug. Isn’t claiming an extraordinarily high standard, that you’ve confessed you can’t attain fully, still better than no standard?? I see the Christ as that standard; not a way of excluding, but the epitome of inclusion. He invited people to enjoy the blessings of the kingdom that was already all about them -- and in them.

Many many more implications -- I’m still working through many of them -- but I’ll stop there….

[Elaine]

"when Christ is rejected because of the misbehavior of His followers, because of their inadequacies and thick headedness, logically that reflects on them and not necessarily on the Christ they serve." Do we not "muck it up" by claiming to be followers of a guru, whoever it may be? Shouldn't we be judged on our own behavior, not by our label?

Since everything falls back on our OWN behavior, not someone we profess to follow, why can't goodness and morality be its own reward? I do believe that morality and ethics can be taught through the concepts of humanism (if that be religion--that's O.K.). Their statement, found in "Free Inquiry" is devoid of a christ or a savior, or sin; and yet, just as in Christianity, if everyone lived up to the ideals (humanism or Christianity) would it make a difference in this world and would there BE a difference?

How many humanists have started wars? How many have had Inquisitions? How many have been intolerant of others who have different beliefs?

Re-reading their statements of principles just now, I see nothing there that is inferior to any religious belief--minus the sin concept and reward offered to believers.

Would we live differently if there were NO rewards now or in the future? Isn't living right its own reward? There is surely no special awards here for being a believer: we are all sick, diseased, die, suffer accidents and misfortunes randomly. IOW, as Arlyn repeats my question: what is the advantage of being a Christian or an Adventist? I have yet to hear a good argument. Why are so many convinced it is a superior condition and yet are unable to express it?

[Sirje]

Did Christ come to create better moral people? Is that what all this is about? Is Christianity primarily a behavior modification club?

There seems to be a dichodemy within Christianity, particularly Adventist Christianity. Maybe this discussion has factored itself down to
christianity being about behavior because the participants are Adventist spawned; but I think at least some of the rest of Christianity thinks there is something called "original sin" which permeates every human being. Whether it came via an apple or not is irrelevent, but there does seem to be some basic element of "sin" that rears its ugly head in every life, including our own. It's our background and upbringing that determines what we relegate as being sinful and how tolerant we can be of our shortcomings, but the problem is definately there. It seems we need a compass directive, a true north, which defines our lives and actions as being sinful or not. Some of us have that sort of introspection down to an artform, where, the harder we are on ourselves, the better Christians we are seen to be (at least by ourselves). But I digress...

My point is, Christianity, as defined by the rest of the New Testament (outside the Gospels) sets up the Christ persona as someone to be chosen and accepted to be effective in a life. While that acceptance leads to "better morality," that is not what it's about. It is about becoming a different "kind" of person - a "new" creature among men. This is, of course, very hocus pocus and undoubtedly mysterious - and we don't like mysterious. We factor everything down to behavior, as if behavior defines exactly who we are. I just wonder if the tax collector became benevolent overnight or did it take some time for his behavior to catch up with his head (heart) - and what was his official designation (Christian, pagan, or other) while this was happening? It seems there have to be degrees of moral behavior for Christians, depending on the starting point. If that is so, then MORALITY and niceness can't be what Christianity, at its core, is about.

[Arlyn]

Elaine, lend a hand to an illiterate- What's IOW?

[Elaine]

Arlyn, IOW=in other words.

Sirje, you have answered what Christianity means to you. My question, sill unanswered: why be a Christian? What difference does it make for those around you? Are Christians the only ones who treat others with respect, and care about them? Or, is it merely a warm, peaceful feeling of being saved and accepting the belief of being "lost" and original sin?

Does Christianity offer more peace than Buddhism? Better morality than an agnostic? IOW, why should I, or anyone be a Christian? If it offers no benefits, it clearly is insignificant.

[Dr. Thomas J. Zwemer]

Elaine you are right, if you base your view of Christianity on prevailing Adventist theology: the “Why Jesus Waits” variety, in which a final generation vindicates God. That proposition is in no way different than any of the moral philosophies or oriental religions you cited. It is basically, “Every day and in every way, I am getting better and better!” Or, I thank ye God I am not as other men are!”

However, Basic Christianity is entirely different. It begins with true guilt—forensic and morally every son and daughter of Adam and Eve is guilty. It offers Grace, unmerited, unearned favor or pardon on the basis of what God in Christ did without any “brownie points” of our own. The acceptance of that proposition elicits both gratitude and generosity in the recipient of Grace and begets a life style of the forgiven.

That life style is not to gain heaven but to gain listeners: kin also in need of that saving Grace so freely bestowed. Tom

[Jared]

Bob and others,

My silence so far has not been due to my ignoring the posts and responses here. I've been away for the last five days.

Let me start by saying that my intent was never to "call anyone out" or to force anybody to go on the defensive. The post on my blog was intended to be a discussion starter, which it was, not a personal attack, which it seems some folks have taken it to be.

Moral. Probably as many ways to define "moral" as there are people commenting here. By moral, I mean a way of living that is in line with biblical principles. A way of living. That's what Jesus taught. The way, the truth, the life.

Bob, your questions:

1. What is the ideal temperature?

I might recast the question thus: "What if climate change really *IS* caused by people as so many authorities suggest, and what if it really *DOES* have such dire consequences?

2. Is there a formula where I can figure out just how many miles I can drive in my SUV before you consider me immoral?

Again, my goal is not to accuse any person particularly. However, global warming aside, pollution of any sort (which is an undeniable problem just about everywhere), is again something that affluent people in affluent countries are primarily responsible for, and something which primarily affects the poor.

Even if I were to concede that global warming really isn't an issue, I'm still confronted by the undeniable fact that it is primarily wealthy consumers who cause pollution of all sorts, and for the most part are immune to the consequences of pollution, and so they see it as not being a problem.

3. You have placed global warming, by calling it a “moral” issue, on a par with ending slavery; with ending apartheid; with the civil rights movement… Do you really mean to do this? Do you mean to associate your Christianity with this item which, for many, is nothing more than a political agenda?

First, if my premise is correct (and I think it is), that this is something primarily caused by well-to-do human beings and it primarily negatively affects the well-being of defenseless human beings, how could I not consider it every bit as important as slavery or apartheid?

Secondly, concerning the notion that this is a political agenda: I am also mindful that for many years, a majority of people supported George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq based on the information they had at the time. With the injection of new information into the discussion, far fewer people now support the war than during the last election. So an appeal to a commonly-held belief does little to help me in this discussion.

4. So, if I disagree with your stance, will you still welcome me into Christian fellowship (you know, the “moral” kind)?

Assuming you're seriously questioning whether I would accept you into my "circle", the answer is yes.

5. Darius asked, Tom, why should we care about global warming save for the fact that it is a threat to the species?

From a purely biological standpoint, you're right. Global Warming only threatens the weak (at least in the short term), and so it acts in accordance with the principle of "survival of the fittest." But Christianity never was a purely biological world view, and I vehemently reject the survival-of-the-fittest principle as the best way.

[Sirje]

Elaine,
I wasn't outlining what Christianity means to me - eaxactly. I'm just wondering out loud. Christianity seems to be confused, ie: the number of denominations.

But since you asked....
Most of the emphasis, in the mainstream of Christianity, has been on God having become man and having come to earth to save mankind. The flip side of this is that Christ is also about "man being lifted up". Christ, it seems, represents Man, with a capital M. It's only the religion about Jesus, that has minimized this and has joined the rest of the world's religions in appeasing God, at least the Christianity you and I are so familiar with. Christian morality, practiced in this way, has to be suspect primarily because if one thinks his erternal survival is at stake, you can make yourself be "nice" and law-abiding to the n'th degree, and make a whole religeous system based on that goal.

Christianity, among other religions, is not about morality, but about how you see yourself - a pawn of "the gods" or "a Son (Daughter) of God". Read this way, Christianity is the only religion that elevates man to this status. The rest leave him groveling in the dirt of this world, trying to lift himself above the brutes through whatever incantations he can think of, a tendency that is still with us, even among Christians. But Christianity, itself, elevates man to the side of God and gives him dignity and a vocation, a vocation we have labelled, MORALITY. The tendency to appease, however, keeps popping up even as the ancients were told that "God doesn't want sacrifices".

Morality, without God, is OK, and good for the world, but says nothing about who we are.

[Darius (statrei)]

Jared, global warming does not work on the principle of the survival of the fittest. Global warming is not an evolutionary process. It would be more accurately defined as a catastrophic event. Those are more of a threat to the more dominant species. Cockroaches would do much better than humans in the worst case scenario of global warming.

[Bob Rigsby]

(continuing the detour away from Jared and Alex’s Global Warming thread…)

Elaine:

For one who eschews labels, seems you are satisfied with humanism as your own label?

As for the absence of an explanation for -- or answer to -- your questions, that is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. In this case you. Does the validity of my embrace of Christ as the greatest of moral expressions need your approval to be justified? I think not. My sense is, the explanation you seek --- does not exist. And it does not exist because you have defined that it is not possible. So it’s not that we are “unable to express it” -- rather, it’s that you find those expressions inadequate. You’ve heard no “good argument” because such an argument does not exist for you.

For of course the very same challenge can be made to you -- regarding your embrace of humanism. eg one might say “I have yet to hear a good argument for humanism over Christ. Why is this a superior condition? Why are you unable to express it better?” And then of course you would no doubt come up with an answer that you do find most convincing and satisfying -- only to find it inadequate for the person asking the question. (I find this sort of thing is how our Jesus Seminar friends operate. Jesus couldn’t have been God -- because such a thing is not possible. We have no way to define, quantify, or detect it. Since it’s not possible, the best explanation is that His followers (in all good faith -- thinking they were doing something noble) went ahead and created a story that they felt best substantiated their new insights into better human moral behavior.)

Now this phenomenon is quite intriguing to me because Christ faced it many times Himself! Intriguing because He never seemed remotely interested in responding to such challenges! Seems He realized such knowledge and awareness cannot be compelled by force of argument necessarily. At least it seems that’s not the direction He took it...

As for humanism being the new savior (or saving concept) for mankind, I suggest your optimism is misplaced; naive even. Lots and lots of evil -- wars even -- have been perpetrated in the cause of mankind’s betterment. If you claim that anyone who would do evil in the name of humanism is simply not a humanist it seems I can claim that precise thing about Christians; if a person does X (name the behavior you find appalling, evil) he thus illustrates he is not a Christian. (This is what I was asking Jared; does the fact that I don’t see global warming issues as he does mean I am not Christian/moral/ethical…)

Humanism then has the precise vulnerability Christianity has; it is at the mercy of humans and their interpretations and flaws and inability to practice their ideals. More serious though (in my estimation) is that humanism as the highest ideal suffers a fatal flaw in that it’s referent is the human mind; which we have already agreed is flawed, limited, weak, and prone to being mislead.

For the Christian however, flawed as it’s adherents may be, the Christ stands as the great referent of man’s highest moral dreams and aspirations. That places Christianity, to my way of thinking, light years ahead of humanism; marvelous (and often remarkably “Christlike” if I must say) as it’s moral vision might be.

Now, if one must dismiss the Christ for so called “lack of evidence” then sure -- I suppose humanism would be the next best option. But it’s a distant -- very distant in my mind -- second. Humanism suffers in that the very need for humanism (ie the fact that so many seem so INhuman) remains the ultimate referent; the very human mind which needs it! Insurmountable problem.

Lastly, I’m still not sure at all why you are so bothered by the Christian prospect of “reward”? Is it because humanism offers no such reward? That it is simply a part of the continuum of the Christian message fits very cleanly into the reality of God as creator; The resurrection (for which you find inadequate evidence) and the origins saga’s of Genesis overlap in important ways. That is, we didn’t come from nothing, we came from God. Somehow. Hence, our value. And within that value is the power over death; the ability to reassemble those parts -- both body and spirit -- that make us real persons. I’m sorry that offends you, but that’s the Christian story. Of course correct living is it’s own reward. But why stop there if there’s more? But without Christ, it does stop there.

[Alexander]

Well, you're free to wander (wonder) all over. . .

But Bob, since you raised objections to global warming, at some time I'd like to hear what you found out in researching the science.

One of the things I notice on this issue is that those who disagree tend not to articulate positions, but merely look to poke holes. Now questioning is essential but constructing a coherent framework for any worldview is essential. As Jared points out, hopefully we can get beyond the sense that the next generation is trying to "make people feel bad." While a laissez faire attitude toward epistemological relativity is interesting at times, the onus lies with those who disagree with the massive weight of specialized, peer-reviewed, heavily critiqued, politically attacked, internationally and American-vetted evidence.

Here's another easy resource, How to talk to a climate skeptic.

[Bob Rigsby]

Hi Jared:

Appreciate your response. And your cordial attitude.

First, Global warming. Seems you agree that it’s hard to say what the earth’s “ideal” temp really is. Your rephrasing of the question merely changed the question. Point is, no one can tell us what the ideal temperature is. But their ability to predict consequences of those changes should allow people to adjust, adapt, change, move, etc. You know, use their God given ability to figure out how to avoid those consequences. The changes this earth has undergone over the years are far more vast and consequential than this current warming episode. Yet we’re here. Guess we’ve adapted pretty well.

Next, you seem quite upset with those who’ve thrived and flourished in a free market system which has taken full advantage of the industrial and technology revolutions. Except it’s those very ones who are then appealed to for help to bail out the rest. But they couldn’t do that without the resources generated by their thriving and flourishing.

And while you’re correct that the poor do suffer inordinately, I think you’re missing (badly) that they would suffer (arguably) even more with the proposed solutions. A classic “cure-is-worse-than-the-disease” scenario. An economic wave for us, results in a tsunami for them. Far better, in my estimation, to adopt policy that seeks to elevate their status as producers and participants in the economy. Free market variety seems best suited to this.

But by far the morality question is biggest for me. Lets say I told you I was setting up a march against abortion. You know, Pro Life march. I felt it was the staggering moral issue of the day. Believed it with all my heart. And I had lots of bible texts talking about life being good; about God being it’s source; of the intense value Jesus brings to life. And I asked you to join me. Would you?

This is why Alex’s answer to me was so brilliant and -- in my estimation -- Christian. Basically he says he’ll cover me while I wait for conviction on the issue. Even as he disagrees with me, still sees it as a moral issue, he’s not condemning me as immoral. That in itself is a moral act I think. So there’s probably a corollary somewhere with my Pro Life march example…. But how cool is that?! Even disagreeing, we thus support each other. As I see things, only Christianity offers the framework to behave this way.

Blessings, Jared...

[Jared]

Bob,

Thank YOU for your response. At the end of the day, what I appreciate (continue to appreciate) about this forum is that it truly does reflect a thought spectrum, and that having listened to one another, we take from the discussion not only perspectives different from our own, but also the opportunity to engage in beneficial dialogue with folks who I probably wouldn't otherwise talk to. That in itself is a big benefit for me. Now I'm going to bed. It's nighttime in Bangkok.

[Alexander]

Just wanted to add in here more evidence on one major contributing factor why there is doubt about global warming.

From ThinkProgress:

In January, oil giant ExxonMobil tried to “soften” its stance on climate change, asserting that it was “misunderstood” and now acknowledges the contribution of humans to global warming. Subsequently, the company promised that it would “not be providing any further funding” to groups that distort global warming science, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

But a new report from GreenPeace reveals what the company “didn’t mention” to the public. According to its IRS reports, Exxon is still actively funding at least 14 organizations “for their climate change work.”

These groups include organizations like Frontiers for Freedom, which recently released a report “dedicated entirely to questioning global warming science, policy and attacking Al Gore.”

Now everyone recognizes that everyone has biases, even scientists, but it get pretty hard to take the critique seriously when some of the bias is directly paid for.

[Arlyn]

Universalism came and went by so fast, Bob and Elaine. It sounds compassionate, but doesn't it minimize how serious evil is?

Sin and evil are not just mistakes, misunderstandings, immaturity and labels for differences one doesn't like. Sin and evil does something to the creature it dwells within- and eventually renders them immune to truth. This is my understanding of how serious sin is, and hence universalism isn't part of my theological paradigm no matter how nice I would love to paint God. God can do anything. But God doesn't do brainwashing. So some won't be saved.

It would be nice to be convinced otherwise...can you?

[Bruce]

Elaine
You were asking "Why be a Christian?"

My perception is that God (Christ) works with every individual, everywhere, and within many (most?) organizations, whether political, spiritual, even commercial. I don't think being a Christian, or Adventist Christian, gets me any easier access to God. The advantage of being Christian, especially Adventist Christian, is the elimination of the baggage and fears I see filling the lives of the people around me. Fear of God, fear of death, fear of Life. With the suppression of fear comes the infilling of joy. I like that.

[Darius (statrei)]

Arlyn, I think you are overlooking the condition that made the salvation of humans necessary. We are not strangers trying to get a job for which we need to be qualified. The human race is the Creator's property and it has been abducted and claimed by "an enemy." We are not responsible for the brainwashing we have undergone during the process. It is not a trivial truth that the human race never sent out a distress call to heaven asking to be rescued. The Creator came to rescue us because it was His property duty to do so. He saved the entire race. It is unfortunate that so many have been encouraged to cooperate with the enemy in attempting to fragment the human race.

[Bob Rigsby]

First of all, this thread of Jared’s has grown from Global Warming, to why we even bother with Christ, to Universalism! (cool)

Darius:
Nice! I like that very much…

And Arlyn:
Just promise me you won’t jump on board the Universalism train too soon. I’ve learned there is incredible personal inertia to believe otherwise. If not dealt with in orderly fashion, it never really gets comprehended…

And BTW, (by the way) my own wife thinks I’m loony for holding this belief…

As for evil not being taken seriously by Universalism; that just doesn’t compute for me. How does punishing (read annihilate) evil equate with taking it seriously? If I was taking evil seriously, the most serious think I could think of would be to fix/change/heal the evil person! That is both hardest and most serious. And that’s precisely what Universalism holds that God does…

My own journey toward Universalism was years in the making; prompted and distilled in recent years ago with a very wonderful (and very liberal) Adventist woman I know well. I resisted it fiercely until it suddenly just clicked. Sort of like Sabbath just clicked for me in ’95.

Oh -- if you don’t mind my asking -- your words sound very much like “Maxwellian” thinking; that is, A Graham Maxwell. If so, I love the guy too and have spent many hours processing his ideas and theology. But he does not go for Universalism at all. (nor many other things that make sense to me!) C’est la vie…

For starters, try this:
For me, the best treatment (that I’ve seen so far) of the subject of Universalism is by Thomas Talbott in “The Inescapable Love of God”. He begins with an inconsistent set of biblical propositions:

(This from page 43…)
1) It is God’s redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore His will) to reconcile all sinners to Himself; (see for instance 2 Peter 3:9, 1 Tim 2:4, Romans 11:32, Ezekiel 33:11, Lamentations 3:22 & 31-33… all these - and more - seem to suggest God sincerely wants to achieve the reconciliation of all sinners…)

2) It is within God’s power to achieve His redemptive purpose for the world; (see Ephesians 1:11, Job 42:2, Ps 155:3, Isaiah 46:10b & 11b… these texts seem to imply that God is able to accomplish ALL of His purposes - including therefore His redemptive purposes…)

3) Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either consign them to place of eternal punishment, from which there is no hope of escape, or put them out of existence altogether; ( see Matt 25:46, 2 Thess 1:9, Ephesians 5:5… texts which may seem to imply that at least some persons will be lost forever and thus never reconciled to God…

It quickly becomes obvious that one can only hold 2 of these propositions and must reject, or explain, (or, “explain away”?) the third. This forms a dividing point for Christians into three general groups; Calvinists/Augustinians, holding to the strict sovereignty of God’s will, and the doctrine of eternal punishment, finally reject the idea that God wills to save all. Arminians, holding to #1 (it is God’s will to save all) as well as to #3 (some will in fact be lost) are forced to deny that it is within God’s power to actually achieve His purposes because God’s will can be thwarted by the free will of men. Last, by holding that both #1 and #2 are true, Universalism rejects the notion that any will be lost in the final analysis. The rest of the book explains why (in ways I find most compelling) it is preferable to deny the proposition that some will be lost. For example, Talbott makes a strong case that Paul was in fact a Universalist.

I’m not enthusiastic that many will embrace this truth in my lifetime. Old habits of thought die too hard. But for me, it solves a lot more problems than it creates…

Bob

[Bob Rigsby]

Alex:

Just for fun, a quote from George Reisman, in The Toxicity of Environmentalism
" . . . Perhaps of even greater significance is the continuous and profound distrust of science and technology that the environmental movement displays. The environmental movement maintains that science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant, to produce a pesticide that is safe, or even bake a loaf of bread that is safe, if that loaf of bread contains chemical preservatives. When it comes to global warming, however, it turns out that there is one area in which the environmental movement displays the most breathtaking confidence in the reliability of science and technology, an area in which, until recently, no one--even the staunchest supporters of science and technology--had ever thought to assert very much confidence at all. The one thing, the environmental movement holds, that science and technology can do so well that we are entitled to have unlimited confidence in them, is FORECAST THE WEATHER!--for the next one hundred years..."

On a more serious note, I’ve long been deeply suspicious on hearing that there is no debate on global warming issues. In fact it seems to be taboo to express public doubts! That is ironic indeed for a) the scientific community that simply isn’t supposed to work that way and b) in a country born in the ideal of free speech. This
Boston Globe article touches this cord in me.

Further, it puzzles me that you do not accept that in real ways, the interests of the oil companies are also your interests. Like it or not, you were born after the industrial revolution and the economies of the world run on energy -- oil included. Oil helps put food on your table. How ‘bout a little thanks to the big oil boys? That they are bad for existing, do not deserve to make profit, are some kind of necessary evil, simply defies logic -- as I see it. Having been through the hurricanes of ’04 here in Florida the cry then was why aren’t they better at getting us more oil here NOW!! (And why does no one “protest” that the “profit” for the government on a gallon of gas is half again more than that of the oil companies??)

Returning to the lighter side, I have found some good evidence that global warming is real.

More concerning again is how disconnected words and actions are among our politicians. This from the WSJ for example, subtitled There's at least one CEO left who is not buying global warming hysteria. should concern people whether or not they worry about global warming. That for many in the media, politics, and business, signing on to global warming is little more than a public relations exercise -- a symbolic gesture at best -- should be most sobering indeed. George Will regularly writes about the unseriousness of our leaders -- especially the ones who give such lip service to global warming -- on various energy related issues.

For me, ones convictions-based-behavior are very important. Thus, based on our behaviors, for example, Al Gore and myself have identical convictions on Global warming. I’m just sure how to avoid coming to the conclusion that Al Gore, deep down inside, knows it’s all a scam. I’m not kidding when I make this observation. This is more than a weak man who’s not been able to act on his beliefs; it may well be a man who is not convinced. At the very least, he’s used the issue as his own personal platform for self promotion.

Anyway, this is an issue where lots and lots of my contrarian and skeptical inner alarms are going off. Knowing that far more dramatic global changes have been ongoing for eons, I’m just not sure why this particular uptick is supposed to be so much worse and fearsome. (oh -- speaking of “fearmongering” -- a work used in relation to the war in Iraq… it seems it is used more appropriately here in reference to global warming…)

PS -- I have no idea if I did this hyperlink thing correctly so here goes...

[Elaine]

"More serious though (in my estimation) is that humanism as the highest ideal suffers a fatal flaw in that it’s referent is the human mind; which we have already agreed is flawed, limited, weak, and prone to being mislead.

For the Christian however, flawed as it’s adherents may be, the Christ stands as the great referent of man’s highest moral dreams and aspirations."

Bob, reading and re-reading your statements above, has it not occurred to you that both Humanism and Christianity are human creations? We have created the perfect man and called him Christ.

Jesus set forth, or reiterated Jewish principles and not until the later NT writers defined and created Christianity, was there a new religion formed--and it has continued evolving throughout two millennia and it is still evolving.

So neither Humanism nor Christianity were divinely constructed, but manmade, and we never leave it alone but keep "improving," changing, deleting, and adding to what is labelled "Christianity."

What is called Christianity today would not be recognized by first century Christians, nor should it be, as anything worth preserving should be worth modifying. Thus, the Roman Catholic Church, although reluctant and slow to change, has also changed much in 2000 years,

You say that "Christ stands as the great referent of man’s highest moral dreams and aspirations." Yes, but it is all of man's creation: we know nothing of Christ except as man wrote of him, and they "created" their stories years after he lived. The old saying that "man created God and we have returned the favor" could not be more appropos. IOW, if man is God's highest creation, it is left for man to create, in imitation of God, and we have created all the systems we have here on this earth.

Christians believe that only through Jesus will we be whole; other religions refer to another source; but they all originate in man's mind--there is no other way for man to think, believe, or worship than through his mind.

Is Christianity superior to all other belief systems? If one believes in Universalism, is one religion to be preferred over another? Does not Universalism believe all beliefs are equal?

[Darius (statrei)]

"Humanism then has the precise vulnerability Christianity has; it is at the mercy of humans and their interpretations and flaws and inability to practice their ideals. More serious though (in my estimation) is that humanism as the highest ideal suffers a fatal flaw in that it’s referent is the human mind; which we have already agreed is flawed, limited, weak, and prone to being mislead."
With the above Bob echoes a familiar misreading. Humanism and Christianity have the same referent. It is central to the teachings of Jesus Christ that we must be especially concerned with the condition of our neighbors. We must love them as we love ourselves, but we must be more focussed on knowing them than on loving them. It is unfortunate that as a result of the civil war in which humans are engaged the combatants have decided that their issues are different. The essence of life eternal, according to Jesus in the book of John, is that we know the Father and the Son. And the only way to know them is through the creation, especially the humans they made. (Rom. 1:20).

[Bob Rigsby]

Darius:
Help me out here.
Are not you too using Christ/God as ultimate referent? Which means you also misread?? Humanism and Christianity clearly do not have the same referent. These terms are not inter changeable are they? If the “only way you can know them is through creation -- especially humans” how (pray tell) did you know that?? I do not and can not know the “fullness” of God merely through His creations; wonderful hints and rumors as they might be. By that thinking it seems to me God cannot be bigger/greater/more than the mere “sum” of His creation. But that is precisely what Christianity does not say. God cannot be contingent on His creation.

So, it seems what you are saying (again -- help me out here Darius) is that in meaningful and important and crucial and practical ways (maybe I could say something like “for-all-intents-and-purposes”?) God measures our “knowing” Him (and by implication, Christ) by our “knowing” (and by implication, respecting/treating with integrity) our neighbor and the created environment we inhabit?? Is that what you are saying? If so, I think that is an incredibly important and valid way to approach God. But God is not those things; He is “other” and He is more. About infinitely “more”.

So .…. I’m saying that in some way we comprehend God with a “sixth” sense. That the revelation of God to sentient minds is both possible transcends all the other ways. And, of course, looks very different to each individual. This presents huge problems of course; problems which concern Elaine deeply -- if I understand her…
See below

Elaine:

Yes; I am well aware of what you are saying. In essence you say that all ideas/thought/constructs of reality are by definition, human. That nothing can transcend the human mind. We can only “ascend” to the greatest that we are capable of imagining. And since all thoughts/ideas are perceived and transposed and digested by the human mind, that is most likely all there is. That human fingerprints are so hopelessly covering everything, that we simply have no way to determining otherwise. You are saying (or, I am hearing) that Christians are deluded in claiming an “outside” referent; that even Christ is a creation of the human mind. And yes; of course that possibility has to be entertained.

So I very much understand your skepticism.

But don’t you therefore see the enormous contradiction in that this very human mind which you have just claimed has “invented” all these varied perceptions, (and is therefore not really logically trustworthy) now must be -- has to be -- the measure of all things?? For we both realize that the “thin line of evil” runs through every one of those hearts (minds). The mind thus, by definition it seems, cannot “heal” itself. If the Christ is nothing more than a fantastic illusion created by man, then so too is the notion offered by humanism that man can save himself by trying hard enough. Since everything is perceived by the mind, the mind is everything. That’s a recipe for hopelessness and despair in my mind. But that is the problem of humanism. I think you are wrong to assert that since human minds must perceive and process ideas, all ideas are therefore human creations.

Your position must assume that there is nothing higher than/greater than the human mind. Or, if there is, it is necessarily incomprehensible. IF there was such a man as the Christ, you have no way of detecting Him and are thus “stuck” with the human mind as the measure of all things… Humanism postulates neither Christ, nor a God… Christianity does. Humanism can only look inward to it’s (admittedly faulty) mind for ultimate enlightenment.

Christianity has, as a founding premise, that God can -- and does -- enter and intervene in this hopelessly self referent loop. Further, human minds are capable of hearing and comprehending God when He does this. As I see it, if our minds is/are all that exist, then logically we are in a hopeless situation. Thus there must be a God (logically, for me) who talks to us to escape this self refuting loop. (ie this same mind with the thin line of evil running through it is supposed to eliminate that very thing which has haunted it so long??)

I am very well aware that this claim is wide open to criticism by skeptics. In fact, the provability of this claim rests right beside the “provability” of God Himself. That minds misuse, misunderstand, even abuse this voice of God however does not mean we are obligated to jettison the whole idea; rather, it could (logically) mean that the “thin line of evil” is, unrecognized, in play… But this reality is openly discussed in scripture. Think of all the references to and promises of the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor 1:18 talks about this message being”foolishness” to the perishing. And so on. Seems we need some “outside” help.

I realize the claim that I (and we) can have access to God in ways that are simply beyond each other and are immeasurable can be -- and is -- seen as astonishingly arrogant. And if what you (or he over there) tell me God “told” you sounds too loony or weird, I will indeed say (at least to myself!) “yeah - right…! What a sucker!” I am probably as distressed as are you at the wildly varied manifestations of the “voice” of God as you are. What I don’t do however, is therefore dismiss all voices as possibly being from God. I keep looking and listening.

But this reality (that God does indeed speak to us; and in these “last days” spoke in the Christ) has had about the opposite effect in most Christians than the one logically demanded (it seems to me). It has has made us cocky, arrogant, condescending, and self assured. It should however make us exceedingly humble; we should virtually tremble at the thought God has chosen to speak. We should be extraordinarily cautious -- and even skeptical of that voice; knowing the dangers of getting it “wrong” may out weight the benefits of getting it right. Further, I think those personal revelations are,largely, personal and for individuals. At least at first.

So, in short (yeah right; rigsby short??) yes; I do believe Christianity is the superior vision. (Which is why I’ve chosen it. Don’t most believe their vision is superior?) But, sadly, few live up to it’s promise. (Including me) Few realize that by embracing Christianity they embrace an incredible obligation and responsibility to make Christ real via real acts; by the warm embrace and inclusion of everybody ; and by recognizing that each has the privilege of hearing God speak for Himself. As I see it, Christianity puts it all together better than any other system of thought.

But the God of the Christianity I’m seeing knows these truths are so wonderful, and true, and inclusive, that He will, literally, stop at nothing until they are grasped by all. that IS the truth of God in Christ which is why I’m so confident of Universalism. Universalism doesn’t need to mean all are “right”; it only recognizes the endpoint of God’s efforts to teach the full meaning and reality of the Christ.

Bob

[Elaine]

"is the notion offered by humanism that man can save himself by trying hard enough. Since everything is perceived by the mind, the mind is everything"

Bob, how do you perceive or hear God? If not through your mind-what is there?

The difference in Christianity and Humanism? Humanism does not offer a way to "save" itself or anyone. To be saved, one must first be lost, and that is the whole Christian message: Accept that you are lost and voila! we have the answer of how you can be saved.

None of us will get out of this world alive: we all are going to die. That being the accepted path for thousands of years, man has contrived many "answers" for the afterlife. Do you know ANYONE who has been there and returned and told us about it? How can you be assured there is something beyond? Sometimes, low expectations are to be preferred rather than empty promises, promises that know one can verify.

We both are D.A.s (like a defense attorney), we must see and understand the opposite side--the Devil's Advocate position too easily comes to mind when certitude is voiced.

Where do you find your concepts of God? from the Bible? From nature? from other humans? That's not possible unless first you have some faint idea of what God should be or do. Going back to the encounter with Moses, the voice from the burning bush was clear: "I am that I am" or "I will be what I will be." Not something that can be nicely pigeonholed. In fact, that is the picture the OT writers revealed: God was very unpredictable; even arbitrary and capricious.

Now, if you have accepted that the Jesus of the first century is also God, where is there a single NT verse where Jesus declares that he is God? He always identifies himself as the Son of Man, but never (correct me if I'm wrong) does he claim to be God. That was left for later writers and long arguments that continue to this day. Perhaps there would be a lot less difficulty if it were accepted that the God as perceived in the OT is an entirely different persona than Jesus as reported in the NT; then it would be similar to a very capricious, even murderous father who had a son who was entirely opposite. Trying to combine the two into one is like combining oil and water.

I admire your trust in Christ as you have created him in your mind and Christianity IS a religion. Perhaps that is what is most perturbing about organized religions: they set up doctines and rule out those who do not readily accept them.

Tell me, please, how our minds cannot BE the "measure of all things." What else is there? A fifth dimension or a 7th sense?

Personally, at this stage (I'm always open to change), Humanism is the best incorporation of universalism. WDYT?

[Darius (statrei)]

Bob, I just reread my post and realized that I was not very clear. I meant to say that it is my belief that humanism and Christianity have the same referent. They both go back to the Creator of the universe.

I approve of your summation of my ideas. I will address the question you posed.

I believe that the best analogy for the Creator is that of an invisible algorithm. It keeps things running but no one can see it. When you get to know someone you also get to know his parents even though you never meet them personally. This is because of a basic law of nature that like begets like. We are not exact replicas of our parents but each of us reflects our parents. But, even though you do know something about that person's parents you do not know exactly what it is you know unless that information is communicated to you directly. The same is true of anything that someone makes or creates. An artist's paintings reflect his personality. A criminal's MO reflects his mind. We produce what we are and what we produce communicates something about ourselves. This is why Rom. 1:20 correctly reflects reality. The invisible qualities of the Creator are reflected in the things that He made. If you want to get close to the Creator of the Universe Romans 1:20 invites you to turn to nature rather than to the pronouncements of the church.

[Jared Wright]

There are a couple more statements in the environmental / global warming discussion here that I feel are worth speaking to.

First, I'm uncomfortable with the reasoning that says that because Big Oil companies make my life more luxurious (reading between the lines) that I owe them a debt of gratitude for their outstanding contribution to my increased standard of living. Isn't that line of reasoning guilty of committing the common "is-ought" fallacy which says that the way things are is the way things should be? Just because oil companies indirectly help me to be more comfortable doesn't mean that what they're doing is what should be happening.

Secondly, I don't think that it would be fair to say that there is no opposing view in this debate. There are scientists contending that the sun is responsible for global warming.

Here is an article that expresses a lot of skepticism about typical explanations of global warming from NASA.gov.

However, I've also observed that there seem to be far more scientists who favor CO2 emissions as a culprit than those with alternative explanations.

Thirdly, the likelihood of an impending financial disaster linked to solutions for global warming seems highly improbable. There would certainly be costs associated with reducing carbon emissions to be sure. But there is plenty of evidence that climate change will have even greater financial consequences left unchecked than the costs of accomodating change. Even (half-hearted) Barack has proposed a plan that would give generous incentives to car corporations that retool plants to produce green vehicles.

Even the staunchest political advocate of global warming knows better than to shoot the economy in the foot.

Here is a pretty comprehensive analysis of the economic side of the global warming issue.

[Bob Rigsby]

Elaine:

Fun conversation.

Of course I perceive/comprehend God with my mind. That’s how we make sense of things. But it’s a real stretch to then say that it’s only happening in my mind. Of course, I’m well aware for an unbeliever it’s also a big stretch to say that God is real. So I respect and understand the dilemma such a person has. But you, as I understand you, do believe in God so you should understand this dynamic. Are you saying God speaks to you via humanism? That this is the common language we should be hearing in all human concepts of God? Is that your definition of humanism? (and how do you see Darius’ idea of humanism?)

It seems you question a condition of being “lost”. When I use the word (I usually don’t) I mean it in ways that connote having “lost” ones way -- not with eternal annihilation. I mean by it that, as we look about us, much has gone “wrong” -- it’s like at our core we humans have gone wrong. Somethings messed up. There is such a thing as evil and we all seem to recognize that. And we have talked and agreed that the “thin line of evil” in fact runs through every heart. That evil then, is in our minds. The condition of being “saved” (as I try to use it) has to do with becoming changed so that the “evil line” is eliminated. Not that we become ignorant of it, but that we become expert -- 100% of the time -- at recognizing it and then rejecting it. But why do we seem “powerless” to get it done on our own??

But if we have only ourselves as a “point of reference” it seems inherently hopeless. Thus the Christian notion that we “can’t save ourselves” resonates deeply with me. It seems that’s all Humanism has to offer. So, whose mind will we follow? Lots and lots of minds have claimed this idea through the eons -- and I don’t see much if any improvement. Well, you might say, we are obligated to follow our own mind; that is our only link with reality. And that’s true to a point -- except that we each then become a law unto ourselves. Each does what is right in his own eyes. And we kinda know where that has taken us.

Interestingly, I think this is the exact dynamic and question and dilemma that is described at the tree in the garden. The story need not be “real” (though the truth is not diminished if it was real) because the point is, it seems to me, timeless. As creatures, there is, and always will be, the capacity to believe we are the measure of all things. We are “saved” by looking inward. But without a point of reference we are prone to…. well, just look around us. Looking “inward” seems to take us the exact opposite direction.

So there’s this crucial need to remain in contact (vague word I know) with God lest we become our own creation. And this is what the warnings about the dangers of “relativism” are trying to refer to I think. So, God’s got this problem. Yes, it’s God’s problem. Seems, by His actions, he has embraced it as His own. As Darius said, it is HE who has taken the initiative. And comes to us. eg see Luke 15 (How exactly God speaks to us in a nature that is “fallen” ie maybe the “red in tooth and claw” horrors, I’d love for Darius to expound upon…) And the problem is something like this: “now that they think that the final measure of truth is “inside” them, how can I get them to realize that this truth has a context -- ME!” ie God.

Contact with God is necessary then, for life. How the “details” of all this works out I’ve really got no clue. Don’t ask for a “mechanism” per se. But maybe the awareness of the need for a connection is the place to start. That is, an awareness that all is not contained inside me or my mind. Seems reasonable enough for a creature. So, what is the nature of that contact?

There are some fascinating hints in the bible that God contacts us whether we know it or not; whether we give Him credit or not; whether we imagine it’s coming from within or not. Places like Romans 1: 19 and 20… John 6:44 (no one comes to Me unless the Father draws him…) … and the lines where Jesus asks Peter from where his conviction came and then claims it was from God. So it’s almost like Christianity’s greatest con job (that is, ALL good impulses come from God -- whether you realize it or not… Just take credit for every good thing for “your” God) or there really and truly is something to the idea that good impulses originate from God. Period. And of course, this is not something one “proves”.

So here’s where it gets really interesting. And Christians usually get really upset about this time. God seems to be saying -- and it seems to me most clear in the person of the Christ -- that the test for how you’ll know whether these vibes/convictions/revelations etc are from Me is… how you treat people -- that is, by the way they love. Ouch! That’s tough for a typical Christian because it includes all sorts who don’t embrace the traditional Christian story! But Paul says the same sort of stuff; look at the list of Spirit Fruits and tell me you don’t know lots who reject the Christ but who demonstrate those fruits. Well, if we’re fair about it, and logical, we accept Paul, and Christ, at their word. Treat others like you would yourself, you DO know Me! Now, whether this is coming from my mind, or coming from God, God is telling me (however that works) in the bible that He claims it all. So, for example, when Christian hear that other cultures also had a “Golden Rule” they get flustered. “Hey -- that’s our rule!” Well, in point of fact, it’s GOD’S rule…

How do I know whether this (thought/idea/inspiration/conviction) is from my mind, or coming from something outside -- since it all goes through my mind anyway?? Point is, if it’s from God, or from my mind, it needs to be treated skeptically. A certain level of suspicion. But that very reality demands humility; skepticism of ourselves because we know we might deceive ourselves, and so we don’t miss the “real” God…

Now for sure I have a big “problem” in that I buy the story of Christ approximately as recored in the NT. Yep; hook line and sinker - as my grandpa used to say. Especially the resurrection. But it’s not a story of exclusion however; it’s the greatest story of inclusion ever old. So it need not threaten anybody. And, if threatened, it is misunderstood. Sorry if that sounds arrogant or “secret knowledge”; it’s how it is as far as I can tell.

Oh yes; lastly, how about a rousing Universalism text for you… You know the passage. And you probably also know how many read it with restrictions and conditions and clauses that are not there! Few “believe” this good news as it reads.

Romans 38-39 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[Elaine]

Bob, I, too enjoy the conversations here as we are able to have a "sounding board" and test our theories and see how they are accepted or rejected.

If we truly belive that all humans are made in the image of God, isn't the biblical injunction to love your neighbor as yourself identical to the humanist's principles? Some of the statements are to promote justice and eliminate discrimination; belief in altruism, integrity, and responsibility; develop moral education of our children; and aiding everyone to achieve the fullest realization of the best and noblest that humans are capable of being.

Yes, I especially like the text from Romans; it was sung as requested by our family for my husband's service as you say, it IS a universalist text!

Choosing to live by the principle that God is love is also an excellent position for us who are Universalists: That is truly UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. Any other kind is not worthy of the name.

The trouble? How do I answer those who know only too well the OT stories of God who is NOT pictured as a loving god?

[Darius (statrei)]

I think that 1 Tim. 4:10 is a much more powerful statement of complete salvation than restoration. The word "especially" is strategically used by Paul to emphasize that it is not only those who believe who have been saved. Without universal salvation the last clause makes no sense.

9This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance 10(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

[Bob Rigsby]

Hey Jared:

If you read my point as translating to your “is-ought” fallacy I miscommunicated it badly. The point is nothing at all like “the way things are is the way they should be”. Rather, the point is that there exists a demand (a need) which somebody has to fill. Why pile on the ones filling that need? That displays an ungratefulness that is unbecoming a Christian; doesn’t it?

It is often forgotten (conveniently) that standard of living and oil consumption move in the same direction.

This brings up another point: Who gets to say what “standard of living” is appropriate? or right? or wrong? Practically every single American has a better one than the majority of earths inhabitants. This kind of thinking runs right along with a mindset that just “knows” (often in moral tones) what a CEO salary “ought” to be; what the price of medicine “ought” to be; exactly what the “minimum” wage “ought” to be; precisely what “profit” someone or some company should be “allowed”… (and also just “knows” what the “perfect” temperature is for this earth…)

Where I might part ways dramatically with you is in your minimization of the economic pain resulting from corrective measures. When you say “Even the staunchest political advocate of global warming knows better than to shoot the economy in the foot.” I say exactly why Kyoto never got off the ground with the US. Vote was 97-0 as I recall. Yet those same politicians still beat that drum; a drum which was strangely silent when given a chance to vote their so called “conscience”. George Will makes some salient observations about that vote.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2007/04/12/the_media_and_global_warming

If you like Will, here’s more. His logic is hard (for me) to ignore…
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2006/06/11/the_end_of_the_world_--_according_to_gore

Lastly, had cause today to be reminded of the extraordinarily enlightening debacle of recent years with Dow Corning and the silicon breast implants saga. Many many human, psychological, scientific, social, political phenomena of that fiasco remind me of the current global warming frenzy. People were profoundly convinced. “Data” was overwhelming. Victims; disaster; deep emotions and concern; demonized companies; righteous indignation…. Except it all turned out to be wrong. All very very wrong.
Which is precisely the way I expect the whole GW thing will work out….

[Bob Rigsby]

Yes Elaine:

But it (this conversation) does have a different flavor it seems in that there is no insistent head banging; which is all too often how the “defense” of Christianity is handled. So of course I like humanism -- as you have described it. But, as I say, and as Jesus said to Peter, who told you these things? How do you know that?? And I’m guessing that your reply might be that it is self evident; or practical/pragmatic (ie it should “work” in theory); or something like that. Something based on the notions that all life has value and so on.

Except that somethings gone very very wrong. What is that? Seems clear that “something” resides inside of us. So, even as you point to the value system of humanism, at some level what you are pointing to resides “outside” of you. This is not to say you can’t detect, evaluate, and then chose it; the point is, it’s totality does not live within us. We need something “more”; an outside referent. If that referent is US (ie our minds) we end up right where we are now. (the point of the conversation at the tree in the garden) Thus, for me, God -- as seen in the Christ -- becomes our “way out” of this dilemma. But Christians (mistakenly) therefore think that it is God’s only revelation of these truths which you are more comfortable labeling “humanism”. So I suppose you could say I have embraced humanism and given it a face; a referent. Christ.

The violence -- to say nothing of the misogyny, racism, and cruelty -- of the God in the OT remains a huge problem for most Christians. The result is an embrace of those qualities and acts, but making some kind of “excuse” for God. Reading Hitchens book God is not Great is fascinating -- and I’m quite sympathetic to his position. He decries the very things any Christian should. He is genuinely distraught at the evil and ill brought on creation by people who claim God. He concludes however that the common denominator of evil is God! Therefore religion (mans formulations of God) is “poison”. But, the flaw of his thinking, in my mind, is that he’s ignored the other denominator which might also be the problem; humans. I say flaw because that is precisely where the blame lies. Thus, with flawed humans who only look inside themselves for direction, we could explain ALL the evil in the world -- including that in the name of God. That is very much a logical possibility; but one Hitchens doesn’t even consider. But I can’t be too upset with Hitchens because he does advocate an ethic of human kindness and respect for all life. It’s just that I don’t think it arose from within him; I think God has revealed Himself to “Hitch” -- as Alex calls him -- but Hitchens rejects that idea because of all the evil done in God’s name. (even though that evil has origins other than God) So, as I say, I have great sympathy for Hitchens…

Universalism allows me (no, encourages me) to see each human mind as being somewhere in the process of “being saved”.

(I think the evil of the OT might be explainable via this dynamic….)

Darius:

Yes -- fabulous text. Thanks for reminding me. There are actually many more. Frankly, I was shocked at how many there are. Of course, the accusation comes that we are “prooftexting” and have ignored context. But who ever reads the entire bible from the context of Universalism?? Why must it always be read from the context of eternal punishment/death??? That seems an assumption needing support also. Support which I simply don’t find in the context of Christ.