The Saviour Of Humanity: Environmental Socialism Or Jesus The Messiah?

Every worldview has a common basic framework.

Cosmogeny describes the origins of the universe and life.

Soteriology introduces a cosmological problem or conflict that requires addressing and describes the journey towards and means of restoring, fixing, or saving the universe and life from this problem.

Eschatology describes the end goal and final destination of the soteriological method.

The biblical worldview establishes that God is both the beginning and the end goal for humanity, with Jesus becoming human, dying, and resurrecting in order to restore us to God and giving us the choice to enter into God’s eternal family. The obvious problem to overcome is sin or rebellion against God’s character and consequently death. The eschatological promise includes a new heavens and a new earth where pain and suffering, sin and death have no place and God dwells with us on the earth forever.

The naturalist worldview likewise follows the above framework and the salvation method it offers is evolutionary progress towards greater complexity, an assumed immortality through technology, and a harmony between humanity and the natural world.

So while naturalistic atheists love to proclaim the Christianity is all about terrorising people with the idea of hell and punishment from a just and holy God (the basic concepts are accurate but they utterly deface the character and the motive because of their hatred of God), they themselves become the prophets of naturalistic doom with the herald of climate catastrophe and the promise of a technological but thoroughly socialist future.

These aforementioned prophets of naturalistic doom include POTUS Barack Obama and, disappointingly, Pope Francis who are two spokes of a United Nations wheel rolling us all towards a world government with excessive power over and access into our personal lives. That is, of course, the price we must all pay for rigidly enforced protection from environmental villainy.

Needless to say, it’s one that finds an enemy in the proclamation of the biblical Jesus and the good news concerning the Kingdom of God.

So where the free market and the freedom to live independently of government coercion, empowered by biblical Christianity and God-fearing Christian values and culture, has led many nations out of abstract poverty and corruption, Obama and the climate-worshiping leftist control freaks are out to give us all a modern shade of communism under the banner of “progressivism”.

Don’t be fooled though, the inner workings of this machine are no different from the one that murdered over one hundred million people during peacetime in the 20th century. Some one get the word out that big government always leads to oppression already!

They offer us names like “Sustainable Development Summit”, which sounds real nice but the end result will obviously look something like Obama’s crowing foreign policy achievement: the disastrous Iran deal. Either that or any of the failed communist states and really, they are probably two sides of the same coin.

Todd Stranberg makes some astute comments about Obama’s functioning plan to destroy America’s economy in the article below and it’s worth getting some insight into where this is all headed:

Obama’s De-growth Agenda

The coal industry is facing its toughest challenge since The Great Depression of 1929. The collapse in coal prices and a growing weight from new regulations has claimed dozens of firms. In just recent months, three major coal producers have filed for bankruptcy.

Alpha Natural Resources operates more than fifty underground and surface mines in five states. It is the nation’s largest producer of the type of coal used in steel production. In 2011, Alpha Natural Resources was worth $11 billion in stock value. The firm is now worth less than $7 million.
Peabody Energy Corporation, is the largest private-sector coal company in the world. In 2011, its stock traded as high as $73 per share. Today, you can buy a share in company with one single dollar.

This apocalypse in coal could have been predicted by anyone who read President Barack Obama’s views on the industry. On January 17, 2008, Obama made known his hostility toward, of all things, electricity generated from coal and coal-powered plants. He told the San Francisco Chronicle, “You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal . . . under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Obama added “. . . So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

The president argues against the use of coal because he views carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In a recent speech, Obama compared it to mercury. Carbon dioxide is not a poison. It is a natural part of the atmosphere. Green plants need it to grow and produce oxygen. Without it our planet would freeze.

The coal business is a vital part of the American economy. It is responsible for over 555,000 Jobs and contributes $65.7 billion to national GDP. Average wages and salaries in coal mine operations (excluding support activities and transportation) is approximately $72,200. Nearly a third of our nation’s electrical power comes from coal fired plants. The state of Kentucky gets 97% of its power from coal.

A rational president would see the damage his previous policies are inflicting on coal and change direction. Obama obviously doesn’t care about the economic impact. He has ordered the EPA to mandate a 32 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030.

The White House expects wind and solar power to play a much bigger role in our energy needs, but we only get 0.4% of our power from solar and wind topped out at 4%. There is a limit to the number of new hydropower plants we can build. Unless we turn to nuclear power, this goal of coal power reduction is a pipe dream.

Another major flaw in this plan is the increase in coal consumption by other nations. China is building one coal-fired power plant every 7 to 10 days, while Japan plans to build 43 coal-fired power projects to replace its shuttered nuclear units. India is another nation with rapidly growing power needs.

The only thing Obama’s socialist plan is going to get us is blackouts, rolling brownouts, and massively higher electric bills. America has such a good power system, most Americans don’t realize how common disruption are in the third world.

The president is seeking to downsize America because he is a supporter of the de-growth agenda. This movement sees the reduction of production and consumption as a benefit to human well-being and the equity of the planet. It calls for a future where societies live within their ecological means, with open localized economies and resources more equally distributed through new forms of Democratic institutions. Obama thinks the U.S. takes too large a piece of the resource pie, so we need to cut back our demand.

Every nation that has followed the Marxist utopian blueprint has ended in disaster. Venezuela is a prime example. Right now, its economy is in a meltdown mode. Lake Maracaibo, at 5,097 square miles, is the largest fresh water lake in South America. Venezuela’s leftist government has allowed oil to leak into Lake Maracaibo, making it one of the most polluted bodies of water on earth.

The de-growth movement is just another plot by the devil to destroy America. The true goal of the environmental movement is to draw the world into a central body that would set the rules. This plan is part of Satan’s master scheme to recreate the type of control he had during the time of the Babylonian Empire. The only way to get back to Babylon is to push for world unity.

I know that environmentalists would bristle at the idea of a refurbished earth being the ultimate solution to all ecological problems. If the world is going to be “dissolved,” there is no need for us to become too attached to it. Knowing that the earth will eventually be put back in order, we need to be concerned with the preservation of our eternal souls.

“…The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness” (2 Peter 3:10-11).

“For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matthew 16:26).

When did government ever come through on all of its promises? And how often did those promises lead to the murder of its own citizens? 

Exactly!

As for me and my house, we will trust in the Lord Jesus, Messiah.
http://raptureready.com/rap16.html

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “The Saviour Of Humanity: Environmental Socialism Or Jesus The Messiah?

  1. Markets and private property are the result of government coercion. I suggest you read the book “Debt, the first 5000 years.” Capitalism is the worst thing to happen to Christianity since it was made the official state religion of Rome by Theodosius. What capitalism does is subject every value to market value, profane everything for the sake of profit, and create an idol out of property and the accumulation of profits. Biblical Christianity is anti-usury, and usury is the very basis of capitalism. Speaking of the Leninist projects of the 20th century as if it’s either Capitalism or that is nonsense, those aren’t the only choices, given that Capitalism has really only been around a couple hundred years that should be obvious.

    If you want to leave everything’s in the hands of the market and in the hands of the profit seeking corporate bodies then so be it, but don’t pretend that this is somehow more biblical than anything else. Remember there were only 2 economic systems endorsed in the bible, one was the mosaic law code which had quasi common property with land, constant redistribution, and a banning of rent seeking and usury, the other was the small c communism of the early church which lasted well into the second centuries since we have ante-Nicene fathers referencing the system well into the second century.

    One more thing, I find it ironic that out of one side of their mouth “conservative” (as if there is anything conservative about unbridled capitalism) Christians preach the most liberal economics out there, one of absolutely human autonomy answerable to no one, one of absolute egotistical profit seeking, one of absolute individual property with no social obligation, one of impersonal market value as the only value on which to measure things. While on the other side of their mouth they pay lip service to social conservative issues, and act surprised that in social policy society matches the ethic of the economic policy, I.e you are completely autonomous and maximizing your wealth and pleasure is the only obligation, this is what leads to every thing from global warming, economic crashes, homelessness and poverty in the midst of extreme excess to things like legalized abortion, legalized prostitution and so on.

    Don’t tell the civil society it has obligation to the poor and to the commons (such as the environment), but rather must just enforce absolute property laws and contract, and then right after say it has the obligation uphold the sanctity of marriage, and the lives of the unborn. You can’t have it both ways.

    Btw I suggest you read the essay by John Milbank on liberalism, I go over it a bit here:
    https://theologyandjustice.wordpress.com/2015/04/28/john-milbank-and-the-tragic-triumph-of-liberalism/

    Like

    • Thanks Roman,

      You have some interesting ideas. You’ve described a few different positions here and only a couple really apply to my own views.
      Obviously, there is no perfect human economic or governmental model but history shows us which ones end up with the most murdered people. Certainly, unbridled freedom is not good for fallen humanity but this is precisely why God instituted human governments. Disappointingly, the misuse of freedom in Western society is equally misused by governments.

      Clearly, mentioning communism in context with the early church means that we are both coming from very different and irreconcilable perspectives. I am uncertain as to whether you are a Christian or not – this could explain our very different foundations.

      Since everything with God is freely given from a heart of thankfulness and joy, whether it is he to us or us to him, the giving of the early church doesn’t really classify as an economic model and certainly one that bears no resemblance to the governmental compulsion of communism.

      Ultimately, the Christian hope should never be in the things of this age because they are all broken and fading away. Jesus is returning to the worst situation in human history so increasing trouble across all facets of society is to be expected. Thankfully, he will deliver Israel and rule from Jerusalem as king, establishing his law across all the nations. Then we will see what real economics looks like methinks.

      That’s a great hope and my hope is that this is also your hope Roman. Thanks for dropping by!

      Like

      • I most certainly am a Christian before anything else. What separates us is a worldview, but not Christian and non Christian, I think it is that you come primarily from an American liberal-capitalist worldview, one which assumes the truth of market value, one which assumes the innate sanctity of property, and assumes the virtue of profit, and equates that with “freedom.” It is a bizarre kind of freedom that assumes that preventing private for profit corporations from absolutely obliterating the commons on which we all depend on for living comfortable lives, such as clear air, clean water, and a balanced ecosystem, one which God gave us to have stewardship over. Being allowed to profit from poisoning the well isn’t freedom, being able to freely drink from the well is freedom.

        I mention communism with the early church because it is the economic structure on which the early church functioned on based on acts 2 and acts 4 and based on more than a few of the church fathers, and it was an economic model, it was a system of distribution of resources. Protecting and expanding the commons isn’t “compulsion” any more (in fact less so) that privatizing the commons.

        And yes ultimately God will bring destruction to those ruining the earth, and probably especially those doing so on the basis of usury. But in the mean time it is our responsibility, and being on the side of unbridled profiteering no matter what the consequence should not be the Christian response.

        Like

      • Thanks Roman,

        Interesting thoughts.

        I didn’t know if you were Christian and so I didn’t assume because in the past, I have assumed I was in dialogue with a Christian based upon their use of theological concepts and terminology and in fact I was wrong. Honestly, that’s the usual reason that people disagree with me – because they aren’t Christians.

        Now, that’s a lot of assumptions about me.

        I actually agree with most of what you have written, again apart from communism in the early church and the critical words you levelled at me.

        There’s a lot that we haven’t discussed but I’ll briefly try to lay out my position (although the original post was not really about any of this and rather a warning against trusting the people pushing us towards a global government with utopian promises)

        Regarding the early church, there is a big difference between family providing for each other (literal family is what the church is) compared with the government of a nation giving to people out of the pockets of others.

        I’m all for government in its right place, as well as tax collection, and that certainly does extend to protecting necessary resources from corporatism but there’s nothing unbiblical about profit and trying to better your standard of living. Of course, because we are sinners, we can twist that system and deprive others to our own gain. I totally agree with you there that this is happening today, foremost in America, and that it is wrong. Unbridled freedom is indeed unbiblical and in many ways the U.S. government and the legal systems are not doing their job to protect the people from corporations because they are largely funded by them. The system has been bought and, yes, capitalism allowed it.

        However, just because people can misuse the system, doesn’t mean they have to. A car can be used to get to work or it can be driven into a crowd and become a tool of murder.

        Socialism and communism are unbiblical from the outset simply because the government controls the means of production, the land, or both. If we go by the biblical model, God gave the 11 tribes (families) land, not to a king or judge of Israel – it was a family inheritance and government wasn’t involved. That rules out government but if “the people” own the land and the means of production, then you can’t steal it because it’s common and biblical commands against theft become redundant.

        So that’s why I would say the early church was not a communist society – they were a generous society that freely gave and it was based upon the personal, familial relationship, something that cannot be mimicked between a government and its citizens on a national level.

        But we can agree to disagree right – we are family after all 🙂

        Like

      • The problem with distinguishing the church, described as a huge family with government is that in ancient times no such distinction was made, the concept of a state is a modern concept. What the church was doing was, I believe a logical extension of Jesus’ declaration of the kingdom of God which was both here and to come, https://theologyandjustice.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/hello-world/, the fact that you’re framing situations of dealing with the commons as “giving to people out of the pockets of others,” betrays a liberal-capitalist prejudice, that was my assumption, I don’t mean to assume things which may not be true, but I induce that thinking for your post.

        There is absolutely something unbiblical about profit in itself, since that would essentially be usury, this was known throughout all of church history basically up until John Calvin, who gave it up, not for theological reasons, but political. But the church has historically condemned usury, which is the basis for “profit” in the modern capitalist sense of the word (making money from owning money).

        As far as Socialism and communism being unbiblical, it depends what you mean by those words. If we take socialism to mean either European social-democratic systems on the one hand, and Leninist systems on the other, the former is no more un-biblical than Capitalism, in fact I would say it’s less so given that it at least recognizes certain things to be of higher importance that profit, such as healthcare, a general welfare, and access to work and resources of a nation. Given that both private property and state property are essentially modern inventions, both created by the modern state, I can’t see how one is more biblical than the other, the latter, Leninist socialism, is clearly unbiblical since it is atheistic at its core. As far as communism, if by communism you mean Leninism then sure, if by communism you mean either “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs” or you mean some kind of common control over resources, then not only is that not unbiblical, I would argue that this is the guiding biblical economic principle.

        The tribes of Israel were distributed land allotments based on families, but that by no means could be considered private property in the way we use the term today, they did not have absolute rights over the property, and much of it was more of less common land. Neither could there be such a thing as “government control” because there wasn’t a modern state system. You had more or less a decentralized tribal system under the judges, then a kind of monarchy. But either way the mosaic law WAS the government, enforced by judges and kings, so jubilee laws and prohibitions against usury was to be enforced by the ruling authority, as well as distribution to the poor through the temple.

        Theft is violating proper ownership rights, be they private, public, common or state, so for example, ancient Jewish thought recorded in the Mishnah equated usury with theft, since one was violating ownership rights of capital by lending it out for a profit, one who refuses to allow gleaning is stealing from the poor. We can’t look at the admonition against theft through the eyes of modern capitalism and assume it’s taking about the type of property we assume is basic.

        As far a the early church, the fact that they were generous is besides the point, the scripture was not saying that they had absolute private property and gave it as gifts, it says they established property as common, that is the very definition of communism.

        I’m not arguing for tax and welfare socialism, but I think we need to think very hard, as Christians, on the immorality and dehumanization and idolatry of capitalism, and look to actually establishing and protecting the commons and relationships basic on mutual aid rather than profit.

        Btw, I apologize for making broad assumptions. And I appreciate you engaging with me.

        Like

      • Thanks Roman,

        I think we’ve been defining a terms differently – we actually agree on most of these matters I think.

        The early church were definitely communal in many ways but I would argue that Acts 5 also demonstrates privatised property in the allocated biblical sense. That’s why I was tripped by your use of “communism”. I actually wonder if the Western church might do well to (or even be forced to in the future) adopt a much more communal style of living.

        I very much agree that we should not be building up wealth on the earth for the sake of it but if we do have wealth, we can use it to build God’s Kingdom.

        Also “profit”, which I’m using not in an usury sense but more in the I can make something desirable out of a basic material and sell if to you as a source of income to me.

        I agree that usury is behind much of our economic problems, though there so much else driving it also.

        Definitely, the church should be different to the world, especially the idolising, wealth pursing West.

        The perspective I am often challenging is more related to the pursuit of world government by leaders and organisations who are clearly interested in power and do not have the people’s interest at heart, despite their claims otherwise. Many of these have Marxist roots and are operating by the cultural Marxist playbook so that’s my angle in many of my posts. I am of course thinking of how well antichrist will be received by many and what kinds of promises he will spin to get so many on board.

        Good discussion!

        Like

      • I don’t disagree here, only to say the holding of all things in common was different to the selling and distribution of goods, but that’s a different subject. My use of the term communism is very broad, I use it in the anthropological sense, not the 20th century monstrosity sense.

        The only thing I would say is that I think it would do much of the American church good (as someone outside of America looking in) to drop the Cold War baggage and language. Given that I think capitalism today is a much larger threat than Marxist-Leninism ever was, if you don’t believe me, look at what’s being commodified today, even prostitution is no longer seen as a degrading violation of something sacred, rather just another entrepreneurial way to create value (redefined by capitalism as money) out of something, even DNA is being commodified, human life, bought and sold so people can make money on money. If you don’t think usury is at the base of capitalism you should see the size of the financial industry and how many corporations depend on it.

        I know this is controversial, but I think Marx had some good ideas (among bad ones), especially when it comes to commodity fetishism and the internal contradictions of capitalism. As far as the cultural Marxism you’re talking about, I agree, but to be honest I think those issues (post-modernism, degradation of marriage and so on) come more from Liberalism.

        Anyway, I think we may agree more than I thought.

        Like

Feel free to discuss.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s