I’m very aware of the arguments in Christian circles about the validity of human-made climate change and I’ve helped fuel those debates on occassion from both sides of the argument. Today I’m putting my hand up to support a cause – Earth Hour.
I’ve heard the critics of Earth Hour argue that it achieves little, but if it gives us an opportunity to stop and think about our lifestyles and how the way we live affects the world around us, both in terms of how we affect other humans with how we live and how we affect the environment, then it has my thumbs up.
No matter where you sit in the climate change arguments, we can probably all agree that to a point we have used and abused this planet – this gift. For that reason, I would encourage you to turn off your lights for an hour from 8:30pm Saturday night as a symbol and take the opportunity no matter where you sit in the arguments, to reflect on how we live and how we can live better. If you’re the praying kind, take some time in prayer for humanity, the world and your place in it all.
Related posts:
I’m not so sure it achieves little. When faced with what I certainly believe is the magnitude of climate change and the assymetrical impact that’s going to have on the world’s poor everything seems pretty insignificant.
But things like this work towards a kind of behaviour change, which is the point I’m trying to make here.
The bible takes issue with almost every aspect associated with “Earth Hour”. The things you think are nice are just distractions.
Genesis 8:22 “While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, Cold and heat, Winter and summer, And day and night Shall not cease.”
John 12:8a “For the poor you have with you always…”
Matthew 6:5 “And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward.”
As for me? I’ll be turning all my lights off every night. If I can remember.
Interesting thought Grant.
Can I get you to expand a little on what you consider to be a distraction? those two verses and one part verse that you quoted covered the environment, the poor and prayer. What specifics are you thinking of when you say “distraction”?
Climate change is a distraction. Pandering to those that think it is something to worry about it just silly.
Thanks for offering that. Can I ask how you see each of those verses fitting?
Genesis 8:22 utterly refutes any suggestion that human activity might endanger the Earth’s ability to right itself. Any promotion based on a fear of the end of a habitable Earth is just the liberal version of a man displaying a “The End is Nigh” sign.
John 12:8a indicates that concern for the poor is not something that might be used to justify a change in lifestyle. Telling me that there are poor people who will suffer is not news and never will be. Telling me I should alter my behaviour because poor people exist is only an attempt at emotional blackmail.
Matthew 6:5 tells us that prayer is the communication between a man and his saviour. Suggesting that we can pray in the dark can only be read as an attempt to make what is an anti-God rally sound nice.
Why not call a spade a spade. A few people are weird enough to want to turn their lights off all at the same time. Why would a Christian need to be seen as accommodating, tolerant or accepting of such a laughable publicity stunt?
Grant, thanks for expanding your thoughts a little more. Needless to say we agree on some of that and disagree on some as well
What were you saying about dismissive comments before, mate?
Hey Grant, there’s some really interesting, thought provoking talks on the subject ‘God is Green’ downloadable from http://www.marshill.org Could give you a different perspective on the matter.
Also – I only saw one person making dismissive comments there, and it wasn’t Frank. I saw him being accomodating and allowing for a different viewpoint, which I’d argue is what we as representatives of Christ should be doing.
Hey Grant. I sincerely was not being dismissive. In fact, in this conversation my intent was to do the exact opposite. I was doing my best to draw you out a little more to expand on your initial comment. I thought I had done that adequately and given you the space to share a bit more to the point where I think I got your perspective and was simply and politely leaving it at that rather than arguing.
I am being honest when I say I don’t have time for drawn out debates, but I do have time for enabling people to share their thoughts and flesh out their viewpoints. The former takes a lot of time and energy and from experience, achieves little. The latter takes much less effort and I have found it to be more constructive.
That’s how I aim to run this blog. Sometimes I’ll stuff it up, other times I will hopefully get it right
Weird. I usually expect a conversation to have two sides. If you disagree with me, say so and back it up. Don’t tell me that there are people out there who disagree .. I know people disagree with me .. I used to be one of them ..
Hey, Frank. I’m a big fan of the truth being simple and short. Too often the response of those who would resist the truth has to string into pages while they attempt to hide their deviance. So I’m all for short and concise conversations.
Grant, the conversation did have two sides. I offered some thoughts (the original post) and then you offered yours. You didn’t support Earth Hour, I did. I’m fine with that disagreement
You have my humble apologies if you were angling for an argument and I have disappointed you.
Humm … is there anything you’re going to say that you will feel drawn to defend?
Probably… but Earth Hour isn’t one of those things
It will take a lot to push me to an argument though.
To be honest mate, I’ve been engaging discussions on the internet for years. Formerly through forums and over the last few years through blogs. My personal blog had some stuff that ended up with discussions that would go well over 100 comments. On that blog I had loads of arguments. I look back on that and think that the blog itself achieved plenty, but the arguments didn’t, so I don’t plan on doing the same thing here. I have a family now and a significant job. I don’t have time to get drawn into arguments that go nowhere.
I enjoyed my personal blog best when people (including myself) were discussing stuff with each other… asking questions, expanding thoughts, listening etc etc, as opposed to just debating and just looking for the debate.
You’ve got me at the wrong stage in my blogging life. There are a few issues I’ll throw around a bit, but not many. I understand why you disagree, I respect that and I don’t assume that I have the place or ability to change your mind
If I simply wanted to grow the number of visitors to this blog I’d argue with you… heck, I’d even try and be a little rude. That stuff drives up blog traffic… but I’m not interested in that.
I’ll be posting my thoughts. Feel free to agree, disagree… or whatever you like. Sometimes I may push back and other times I might not… its just the way it’s going to be.
OK.
Grant, if I can make a comment regarding the use of scripture in the way that you have done with Genesis 8:22…
The problem here is that we first have to ask ourselves whether a particular scripture is true (or reliable) and, if so, whether our interpretation of it correct.
An example of this is Mark 16 and the verse that talks about believers’ ability to handle snakes and drink poison without dying.
First, we have to ask whether this is true (or reliable) and, in this instance, we know that these verses were probably added later on which casts some doubt as to their authenticity. Even if they were authentic a good case can be made for us to doubt whether this was actually true even at the time.
Secondly, if the verses are reliable, how do we know that our interpretation of them is correct? To me it seems that the author is saying that all believers will be able to pick up snakes and drink poison but perhaps this is just talking about a specific era or group of people?
I have very little doubt that if you were to drink poison (I’m assuming you believe yourself to be a believing Christian who has been baptised) you would die without medical treatment and would encourage you not to try it.
The way you have interpreted Genesis 8:22 seems to me to be making a similar gamble to what a Christian snake-handler would make and I don’t believe this is particularly wise.
My big problem with this is that the snake in this case happens to be the environment I have to live in and is capable of biting me should you choose to take your particular interpretation of scripture to be more correct than the best scientific evidence.
I would ask that you reconsider the evidence for our ability to damage our habitat instead of dismissing it as a ‘distraction’ based on Genesis 8:22.
Damian. That is, without doubt, the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.
Hmmmm, that’s weird. As you might guess, I thought I’d done a fairly good job of presenting my thoughts on the matter without resorting to insult or banality.
In the interests of my continued education and self-improvement would you mind going into a little more detail which points were ‘dumb’ and for which reasons?
1. If I did not think scripture was reliable then I wouldn’t have quoted the bible in the first place. That you think scripture is unreliable is irrelevant to a point based on the assumption that scripture is reliable.
2. Your implication that Mark 16 is not reliable is blown away by a continued reading where believers did pick up snakes, heal the sick, cast out demons and speak in tongues.
3. There are not a lot of ways to interpret what we read. Either you accept what it plainly says or you’re making things up.
4. You correctly surmise that I do not accept this verse as applicable to believers today and seem utterly unaware that this is for the very reason you glossed over.
5. You presume the veracity of your own assumptions in implying that I might somehow be able to harm the Earth. All I have confessed here is to a broad skepticism of any “Earth Hour” type events. You seem to think I’m dumping nuclear waste down the sink.
Picking up a poisonous snake invites getting bitten just as being irresponsible with the environment invites disease and unpleasantness. Neither topic is in question by either myself or the bible.
Grant, thank you for your response.
My criticism was never of whether you like Earth Hour or not (I myself didn’t observe it) but of your seeming conviction that, based on your interpretation of scripture, it is not possible that “human activity might endanger the Earth’s ability to right itself”.
I pointed out that first you should be sure that the scripture is true (and you are correct; we don’t agree on this point) and, if so, that your interpretation of it is also correct.
My illustration with Mark 16 was to highlight that, even disregarding the veracity of the original, a mistaken interpretation can mean all the difference between life and death in the case of snake-handling and drinking poison. (You are presumably aware that there are Christians who hold these verses to be still applicable – an interpretation you and I both clearly disagree with).
I am, however, encouraged that we agree that “being irresponsible with the environment invites disease and unpleasantness” [and presumably, drought, famine, flooding, etc, etc]. A point which seemed lacking in your original comments.
But if we agree on the fact that we humans can adversely affect our environment then why did you go out of your way to criticise the notion of “Earth Hour”? Perhaps you’ve missed the point that it’s merely an awareness-raising event?
Earth Hour is predicated on the idea that our everyday standard of living is destroying the planet and that there is some moral imperative that we all change.
The bible makes it quite clear that we are utterly justified in living, growing, multiplying, building, expanding and using natural resources.
Earth Hour is part of an anti-Christian movement to revere the creation over the creator.
The “points lacking” you’ve raised are red herrings.
I agree. And so does our best scientific understanding.
If so, then the Bible is incorrect. Perhaps you need to add the caveat “responsibly” in there somewhere. But I suspect that, lacking this caveat, this really isn’t “quite clear” as many other Christians would disagree with your statement. Which puts your interpretation relative to theirs into the snake-handling, poison-drinking realm.
This twisted logic would mean that any concern for other humans or any other part of the world in which we live (i.e. cleaning up oil spills, cruelty to animals, human aid, etc, etc) is a part of an anti-Christian movement.
Again, most Christians I’ve come into contact with would disagree with you on this one. The rest of us are just plain baffled and bemused!
Grant, let me refer you to our comment policy. Click here to read it.
This comment is not acceptable, especially as a comment offering no further thoughts until prompted by the person you directed it at:
By all means disagree and have robust discussion, but simply offering insulting comments such as this will lead to you being blocked from commenting.
I value your input, so familairise yourself with the tone asked for in the comment policy and engage in discussion accordingly.
Yeah, Frank, I’d read the comments policy. They sound very nice, but unfortunately they are biased against a person who wants to reveal the truth hidden in a nice sounding set of lies. I’m not going to last long if I’m to be banned for calling dumb what is dumb.
Damian – your, “best scientific understanding” is just a set of opinions that you think are worthwhile. If you think the bible is incorrect then I have no further comment on this matter for you. It looks like you’re just going to continue to try and paint me into a corner. You want to believe that I’m incapable of doing good because I resist a campaign that asks me to turn my lights off for an hour.
Resisting Earth Hour does nothing of what you say it does. Calling it anti-christian does not stop its followers from claiming to follow Christ. And supporting Earth Hour gives you no ammunition to imply that I’m irresponsible or a “snake-handler” for not.
[url=http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25146]link code test[/url]
[quote]quote code test[/quote]
If those don’t work can you point me to the code that does?
Are my posts being reviewed before publishing?
No, that one was held because of the link. I’m not quite sure why. I’ll need to check the spam settings.
And no, the comment policy is not biased, at least, not against respectful discussion. If you plan to be obnoxious then it is biased against you. It’s quite simple – don’t call someone elses comment “dumb”. Instead, state why you disagree. The rest of what you’ve said is fine.
In terms of code, I’ll flick you an email since I’m not sure if the code can be shown here without it trying to action itself.
Nope .. why didn’t my last post take then? Weird. Anyhoo…
Frank – I’d read your comments policy. It’s biased against people who would rightly point out that something dumb is dumb. I realise I didn’t include a reason why Damian’s post was dumb, but I’ve not abandoned the discussion to a simple insult.
Damian – Your “best scientific understanding” is merely a lot of opinions that you like. If you’re going to insist that the bible is incorrect then your disapproval of my resistance to Earth Hour is useless.
Your implication that my right use of the word of God correctly makes me a “snake handler” or against any notion to prevent ecological and humanitarian disasters is dishonest in the extreme.
The fact is that my resistance to a silly turn-off-lights-for-an-hour campaign does not imply anything you’ve mentioned. The fact is that it is possible to make yourself sound nice while repeating lies. The fact is that supporting Earth Hour does not restrict ones ability to claim Christ.
So, in order to contribute anything of value to this debate you can either treat the word of God with some respect or you can deny the word of God and argue for service to the Earth over Him.
Grant,
No, this is not just a set of opinions, it’s the result of the use of the scientific method. An extremely powerful tool for understanding reality and, hence, the effects of human actions on the environment we live in.
At every opportunity I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt and argued from the assumption that the Bible is true. My personal belief is that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be but I’ve tried to keep this from muddying the discussion.
My criticism has been of your method of using an interpretation of literature to trump scientific evidence. I believe you (like everyone I’ve met) are fully capable of doing good.
No one has claimed it stops Christians from doing anything. My comment was to highlight the logical fallacy that any cause with concern for ‘creation’ (instead of your false dichotomy of ‘creator’) would have you treat any humanitarian or natural crisis as ‘anti-Christian’.
Or, we can ignore your attempt at forcing a false dichotomy and proceed with me very generously giving ‘the word of God’ the benefit of the doubt (which, I hasten to add, I should be under no obligation to do) and discuss your interpretation of scripture.
Or we can stick to my original point that the word of God clearly teaches that “Earth Hour” is a waste of time and treat the fact that you reject the word of God as irrelevant to my point.
I think we’re done here Grant.
I find it interesting that the athiest in the argument presents as more loving, polite, and accepting of different points of view..
As far as earth hour goes, I don’t really think it achieves a huge amount, however I did take part, and it was a good chance to ponder on just how much I waste resources I don’t need to. So perhaps it was worthwhile…
And I personally think that we have a God-given ‘responsibility’ (cf. ‘right’) to take care of what has been entrusted to us. Leaving the discussion now – not interested in arguing the point, just wanted to present a different opinion.
Thank you, Flendolyn. I’ll take that for the compliment you meant it to be.
This will probably sound overly-sensitive, but I’d like to point out that saying this kind of thing sort of implies that you find it surprising that atheist can be as loving, polite or open-minded as a Christian. Or at least, that’s how it came across to me.
Just so you get an idea of how this sounds to me, how does the following sound to you:
“Regarding Flendolyn’s comment, I find it interesting that a woman comes across as more logical than the men in this discussion”.
We’re all just people. All capable of love, logic and open-mindedness. These attributes don’t belong exclusively to a belief system or gender.
All that said and done, I do recognise you probably didn’t intend your comment at as slur on atheist-kind and thank you for the spirit in which you meant it.