Global Warming a New Religion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walter_Casler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Belief in Global Warming is not a new religion but rather a de facto act of Faith in one of the oldest religions on Earth…Gaia worship. Earth Mother worship.

It is emblematic of a culture in crisis living out a mannerist decay. Vibrant growing maturing cultures believe in male sky Gods. Decaying cultures which have lost confidence in themselves retreat to mother worship.

Western culture is in decay and is retreating to mother worship. It is in rebellion against its father. these are profound millenial realities which are much deeper than global worming be it a reality or not.
I think it’s mostly secular humanism, which removes God completely, and makes humans the apex of creation. Thus, since we humans are at the top of the scale, there is no sin, and yet, paradoxically, we can also assume blame and guilt for everything here on planet Earth. Which is convenient to the elites who can tell us how to live while they are in a different category completely, I suppose they think they have “evolved” to be almost a different species from us. Secular humanism and moral relativism are the 2 greatest plagues in Western civilization today.

I see this thread is already becoming confused between the issue of anthropological global warming and stewardship of resources. There is a huge difference between taking good care of what God gave us for our use, and deciding that the “earth has a fever” so you can control what light bulbs people use (filling your own pockets).
 
It’s funny, the other day on FaceBook I expressed my own opinion in a post, that I did not truly believe in the theory of global warming. This unleashed the wrath and fury of people who up to that moment I would have called friends. The attacks that they came at me with were 1st That I’m not educated. 2nd That I’m crazy and must have some form of brain damage. 3rd I’m suffering from hysteria.
This is the way they try to keep you from stirring the pot on this is topic: 1st attack you for not being as educated as them, trying to dumb you down. 2nd discredit you by claiming you’re not of sound mind, “Do you hear this crazy Guy?” 3rd to make you appear unhinged, Oh that’s just Walt going off again.”
Its terrible that people who you thought were friends would talk to you this way instead of trying to engage in a discussion of your differing views. You were brave for voicing your opinions, and I believe they werent as brave for simply agreeing with eachother and then using nasty name-calling. Now I am something of a hippy flower child (even though I wasnt born until 1985 lol) and want to take care of the planet as much as the next person but I think staunch believers in global warming can sometimes let their emotions get a bit out of hand and accuse anyone who disagrees with them of not caring about the planet and of being ‘deniers’ of the truth. Its an understatment to say that in the old days anyone who said that the world was not flat was called crazy. Its similar now. You try to voice an opinion which is not popular amognst the masses and ridicule follows.😦
 
I think it’s mostly secular humanism, which removes God completely, and makes humans the apex of creation. Thus, since we humans are at the top of the scale, there is no sin, and yet, paradoxically, we can also assume blame and guilt for everything here on planet Earth. Which is convenient to the elites who can tell us how to live while they are in a different category completely, I suppose they think they have “evolved” to be almost a different species from us. Secular humanism and moral relativism are the 2 greatest plagues in Western civilization today.

I see this thread is already becoming confused between the issue of anthropological global warming and stewardship of resources. There is a huge difference between taking good care of what God gave us for our use, and deciding that the “earth has a fever” so you can control what light bulbs people use (filling your own pockets).
:clapping: Very interesting. Especially when you say, “I think it’s mostly secular humanism, which removes God completely, and makes humans the apex of creation. Thus, since we humans are at the top of the scale, there is no sin, and yet, paradoxically, we can also assume blame and guilt for everything here on planet Earth.” You’re right, its funny how secular humanism dismisses sin but doles out guilt and blame onto the human race, yet at the same time it lambasts religion for doing, as they see it, the same thing.
 
Its terrible that people who you thought were friends would talk to you this way instead of trying to engage in a discussion of your differing views. You were brave for voicing your opinions, and I believe they werent as brave for simply agreeing with eachother and then using nasty name-calling. Now I am something of a hippy flower child (even though I wasnt born until 1985 lol) and want to take care of the planet as much as the next person but I think staunch believers in global warming can sometimes let their emotions get a bit out of hand and accuse anyone who disagrees with them of not caring about the planet and of being ‘deniers’ of the truth. Its an understatment to say that in the old days anyone who said that the world was not flat was called crazy. Its similar now. You try to voice an opinion which is not popular amognst the masses and ridicule follows.😦
Hi Rachel,

In case anyone here is interested in a balanced discussion Web site, I invite everyone to visit www.climatechangedebate.org

Great bunch of people.

And none of that abuse when someone disagrees with you.
 
“They”? You have to ask???

It’s THEM.

That’s who “they” are.
Yes, I have to ask. That is why I asked. It was not clear in the post to which I was responding. And I repeat:

Who are “they?”
 
I think it’s mostly secular humanism, which removes God completely, and makes humans the apex of creation. Thus, since we humans are at the top of the scale, there is no sin, and yet, paradoxically, we can also assume blame and guilt for everything here on planet Earth. Which is convenient to the elites who can tell us how to live while they are in a different category completely, I suppose they think they have “evolved” to be almost a different species from us. Secular humanism and moral relativism are the 2 greatest plagues in Western civilization today.

I see this thread is already becoming confused between the issue of anthropological global warming and stewardship of resources. There is a huge difference between taking good care of what God gave us for our use, and deciding that the “earth has a fever” so you can control what light bulbs people use (filling your own pockets).
As far as I know, nobody here has said that the “earth has a fever.” And the possibility of global warming created and/or exacerbated by human beings is certainly related to the topic of good stewardship of the earth.

If human beings have caused global warming and/or are contributing to it, human beings are quite simply not being good stewards of God’s gifts.

I can see a problem if a profit motive is present. But true environmentalists are concerned exclusively with stewardship of the earth - not making money off this stewardship or attempting to control people’s actions which may be limited to a negligible negative effect on the environment, if even that.
 
Its terrible that people who you thought were friends would talk to you this way instead of trying to engage in a discussion of your differing views. You were brave for voicing your opinions, and I believe they werent as brave for simply agreeing with eachother and then using nasty name-calling. Now I am something of a hippy flower child (even though I wasnt born until 1985 lol) and want to take care of the planet as much as the next person but I think staunch believers in global warming can sometimes let their emotions get a bit out of hand and accuse anyone who disagrees with them of not caring about the planet and of being ‘deniers’ of the truth. Its an understatment to say that in the old days anyone who said that the world was not flat was called crazy. Its similar now. You try to voice an opinion which is not popular amognst the masses and ridicule follows.😦
It’s facebook. Facebook is used as a means for people to basically tell the world to #&$* off. When Pope Benedict gave his blessing to facebook I was a very new member and was happy to post my views.

The “thread” went on for about four days. And about every fourth or fifth comment was composed of two or three words; one foul and the others being “Catholics,” “Catholicism,” or “the Pope.”

I tried to defend the Church. And surprisingly enough, people I didn’t know “liked” my comments and a few asked to be my friend. But when reading the thread itself, I saw blatant hatred for Catholics, the Church, and the Pope. I was really not aware that anti-Catholicism was so common and that many people who hate us hate us with a passion. There were comments made that would result in an instant banning on this forum. I can’t post what was stated on facebook, but it was nasty, angry gibberish.

It’s the same with any topic, including global warming. I agree that it is sad if one’s friends act in such a fashion, but if they do, they aren’t one’s friends. Not really.
 
As far as I know, nobody here has said that the “earth has a fever.” And the possibility of global warming created and/or exacerbated by human beings is certainly related to the topic of good stewardship of the earth.

If human beings have caused global warming and/or are contributing to it, human beings are quite simply not being good stewards of God’s gifts.

I can see a problem if a profit motive is present. But true environmentalists are concerned exclusively with stewardship of the earth - not making money off this stewardship or attempting to control people’s actions which may be limited to a negligible negative effect on the environment, if even that.
Maybe someone can help me here…I haven’t yet come to an understanding of the concept “stewardship of the earth.” That is, if we are stewards of the earth, for whom are we stewards? Certainly not God, there is no way He could care, because there will be “a new heavens and a new earth” anyway. After the second coming, God will usher in a whole new world and system of things. The old will be done away with. Death and suffering will be no more, and this new world will be all brought in by God, not man. So, if we are stewards, it can’t be for the benefit of God!

Global warming and environmentalism do seem to be a form of religion for a number of people, a form of earth worship. For them, we are harming the planet, as in global warming, and that is a sin against the earth itself. But, in my view, the only way for it to be a sin against the earth, would be if you felt the earth was a deity itself. Gaia. Otherwise, how could the earth care? Heck, at times it has been molten and other times covered with ice. It has seen a lot, and will see a lot more.

Some people even are disturbed by moon landings, and Mars landings. These pristine planets are being polluted! Earth isn’t enough! A friend of mine even didn’t like the idea of the Kepler satellite discovering new, earthlike planets, because now we might contaminate them by our impurity. I assured her they were hundreds and thousands of light years away, and she felt better She’s not religious in the conventional sense, but neverthelss she seems to have a strong sense of original sin!
 
I must ask everyone to read post s-l -o- w-l-y and with a smile.
Global warming is a new religion in the same way Armageddon is a religion.

I think you’re assuming “Global warming” is tied into “new age” green theology… thing is, when the Sierra Club kicked in, they kicked out Christian environmentalists… and now they have the monopoly on it.

Scientific Progressivism is to blame for our quite likely blight… and yet the new scientistic progressivists align themselves with the neopantheistic environmentalists, to blame Christianity for it all…

it’s suckers like you who give them license!

Watch TV Online
 
I find it amazing that people think it is a fraud and a hoax. What do they think … people are laughing their backsides off over it? Profiting over it? What couild be the motive?
You answered your own question, though the profiting is not always or necessarily financial (it often is to the tunes of billions), but also political (*a la *Al Gore) and peer/social profiteering (e.g., pundits and experts on TV).

No one is saying that human activity does not have consequences on the physical environment, sometimes negative and sometimes positive, and every possible degree in betwteen, and that these consequences can - and often are - very imprudent, short-sighted and dangerous ; however, and without doubt, global warning fanatics have usurpsed the legitimate concerns of the consequences of human activity on the welfare of mankind and used it as a weapon and cudgel against the ultimate welfare of mankind ; i.e., in demanding population reduction, sterilization, increased abortion, increased punitive taxes on industry and labour, ad infinitum. Many of these measure have wrongly supplanted the physical environment and placed it over and above the human race. It may be the best documented case for a new and modern phenomenon of anti-humanism, of official misanthropy.

All too often the experts and pundits I see blabbering on about global warning are more akin to televangelist would-be-prophets forecasting woe, doom, and gloom - which we can save ourselves from if we send a twenty-five dollar cheque to End Global Warming in Ipiwa, Kentucky, PO BOX… (you get my drift), than legitimate observational scientists reporting the data they have collected. That’s a key difference. Scientists are supposed to collect and report observations and data, not interpret the social or political ramifications these might have. This protects their neutrality and objective status, but when we see scientists being indoctrinated with a thesis such as global warming is going to destroy the world, and then issued marching orders to prove this, then the legitimate science suffers because they have become the agents of an agenda and not neutral observers of natural phenomenon.

Pax Christi,
Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top