Is climate change just a modern expression of christianity?

[Crispy]

forget about the bits which arent relevant to your personal reponsibility, because personal responsibility is imo the central issue


christianity says that you are individually responsible, climate change also says that you are personally responsible

No, it says we are collectively responsible. BIG difference.

My behaviour has no effect on your chances of avoiding Hell.
My behaviour does have an effect on your chances of avoiding Climate Change.

See the difference there?

 

[cesare]

to try to find the answer to the question

To what end?

 

[butchersapron]

forget about the bits which arent relevant to your personal reponsibility, because personal responsibility is imo the central issue


christianity says that you are individually responsible, climate change also says that you are personally responsible

Oh god. Help me now, in this, my hour of need.

 

[max_freakout]

It depends what type of christianity you chose. The type I grew up in said that god would love you no matter what. No-one who grew up in the united reformed church goes to hell. In fact, they don't really think hell exists. To be honest, I'm not sure they think god exists, I think they're just keeping up appearances. But you get forgiven anyway because jesus loves you, no matter who you are.

the bible says that hell exists, there are many references to the pit of burning sulphur to which sinners are condemned

 

[max_freakout]

To what end?

the end of actually finding the answer to the question

 

[Crispy]

the end of actually finding the answer to the question

I think we have haven't we? What further information is required?

 

[max_freakout]

Yeah but big difference is that even if I cycle everywhere and eat only home-grown tofu, climate change is still going to happen if china keeps on with the coal. Avoiding it is a collective responsibility.

but climate change rhetoric says that if you just grow hemp and eat tofu, you are not being personally responsible for climate change, even if it did happen, you would be blameless because you didnt contribute to it (because climate change is caused by burning fuel, which is something that each individual can choose to do more or less of)

surely 'China' is not an entity that can be blamed for climate change, because a person living in the Henan province, who only grew hemp and ate tofu, would be similarly blameless, the 'blame' for climate change, must surely lie ultimately on individuals

similarly climate change cannot be blamed on the collectivity, because if you do that, then is the person who eats tofu to be blamed just as much as the person who drives a 4x4 to the postbox?

 

[bluestreak]

I think we have haven't we? What further information is required?

50 pages of argument, denial, facepalms, and abuse until the thread finally dies with max claiming victory because he hasn't changed his mind no matter what actual evidence is put in front of him?

 

[david dissadent]

climate change rhetoric is like the christian guilt impulse, as it has manifested itself through modern science

dd's post was viewing both climate change and christianity in terms of science, but this is a lopsided way to evaluate the validity of either one, because the scientific viewpoint does not have anything whatsoever to say about personal responsibility on the matter

How in the name of Christ is it lopsided to evaluate AGG climate change with science. There is no other way. Either it is scientifically valid or it is not.

 

[max_freakout]

I think we have haven't we? What further information is required?

if we had, there would be nothing to talk about

 

[Crispy]

if we had, there would be nothing to talk about

There's another thread for that.
Stay on topic please.

 

[max_freakout]

How in the name of Christ is it lopsided to evaluate AGG climate change with science. There is no other way. Either it is scientificly valid or it is not.

this is a question of personal, individual responsibility (do i drive or cycle? do i sin or follow Christ?)

personal responsibility is completely irrelevant to science, science has nothing whatsoever to say about whether or not i am responsible for my decision to drive or walk

 

[max_freakout]

until the thread finally dies with max claiming victory because he hasn't changed his mind

lol

 

[cesare]

How in the name of Christ is it lopsided to evaluate AGG climate change with science. There is no other way. Either it is scientifically valid or it is not.

You have to bear in mind that max's new world view is one where if he persuades us all to practice egodeath theory, facilitated by the use of psychedelic/dissociative drugs, then we will be practicing mind expansion which will (a) sort out the world's problems or (b) help us to dissociate from them entirely.

 

[max_freakout]

There's another thread for that.
Stay on topic please.

are you going to tell anyone else to stay on topic or does that rule just apply to me?

 

[david dissadent]

this is a question of personal, individual responsibility (do i drive or cycle? do i sin or follow Christ?)

personal responsibility is completely irrelevant to science, science has nothing whatsoever to say about whether or not i am responsible for my decision to drive or walk

This is NOT what you asked in the OP. Climate change is actualy irrelevant as you could ask the same questions about the economy and the individuals responsibility for fiscal prudence, or whether participation in the society is an act of complicity in the Iraq war. The list is endless.

Your OP asked if climate change was just a modern substitute for Christianity, then you wander off stating you were really on about personal responsibility. You have failed to clearly delineate what you are asking and you actualy seem to be asking slightly different questions with every new post.

 

[Crispy]

are you going to tell anyone else to stay on topic or does that rule just apply to me?

It was a joke. There's already a 'nothing' thread.

Anyway, you still don't seem to have grasped the difference between personal and collective responsibility. The actions of other people have ZERO effect on my chances of going to hell. It is my actions and my actions ALONE that decide my fate.

However, if I didn't do a damn thing about climate change, heated my house with burning sirloin steaks, drove a 1mpg heavy tractor 200 miles to work every day etc, but EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD switched to an ultra-green lifestyle, climate change would be averted.

You see how the hard rules of how these two responsibility/consequence games are different? How the share of cause and effect is differently distributed?

 

[max_freakout]

It was a joke. There's already a 'nothing' thread.

ok

Anyway, you still don't seem to have grasped the difference between personal and collective responsibility. The actions of other people have ZERO effect on my chances of going to hell. It is my actions and my actions ALONE that decide my fate.

However, if I didn't do a damn thing about climate change, heated my house with burning sirloin steaks, drove a 1mpg heavy tractor 200 miles to work every day etc, but EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD switched to an ultra-green lifestyle, climate change would be averted.

You see how the hard rules of how these two responsibility/consequence games are different? How the share of cause and effect is differently distributed?

but again, im not asking how climate change rhetoric applies to the collectivity, im asking about how it applies to YOU, climate change is the result of lots of individuals acting collectively, but it is nevertheless only up to each individual to contribute more or less to climate change

according to the idea of collective responsibility, you are blameless for climate change if you choose to do the right thing

therefore, if you were to eat only tofu, and the earth still heated up anyway, this would be comparable to a saint going to hell, you did the best you could, but god/fate went against you anyway

 

[Crispy]

if you were to eat only tofu, and the earth still heated up anyway, this would be comparable to a saint going to hell, you did the best you could, but god/fate went against you anyway

But saints don't go to hell.
So that proves my point, the two are different.

 

[max_freakout]

This is NOT what you asked in the OP. Climate change is actualy irrelevant as you could ask the same questions about the economy and the individuals responsibility for fiscal prudence, or whether participation in the society is an act of complicity in the Iraq war. The list is endless.

Your OP asked if climate change was just a modern substitute for Christianity, then you wander off stating you were really on about personal responsibility. You have failed to clearly delineate what you are asking and you actualy seem to be asking slightly different questions with every new post.

ok, i could have made it clearer by asking:

"is climate change just a modern expression of christianity in terms of personal responsibility?"

 

[Crispy]

ok, i could have made it clearer by asking:

"is climate change just a modern expression of christianity in terms of personal responsibility?"

Answer: no, because the responsibility is collective as well as personal. Responsibility for your salvation from hell is yours ALONE.

This can explain why people feel they do not need to make an effort. "if everyone else goes green, I'll be alright"

But "if everyone else is supergood and gives to charity, I'm still going to hell cos of my enormous porno collection" is a different situation, wouldn't you agree?

 

[max_freakout]

But saints don't go to hell.
So that proves my point, the two are different.

likewise, climate change might not happen, we might all start eating tofu

 

[bluestreak]

the bible says that hell exists, there are many references to the pit of burning sulphur to which sinners are condemned

The bible says many things. It also says that sinners will be forgiven.

 

[Crispy]

.

 

[max_freakout]

Answer: no, because the responsibility is collective as well as personal. Responsibility for your salvation from hell is yours ALONE.

i do not understand how the 'collectivity' could possibly be 'guilty' in the way you seem to be suggesting


how can the collectivity AND the individual both be responsible? If only 5 people in the world caused all the carbon emissions, would the collectivity still be responsible?

 

[max_freakout]

The bible says many things. It also says that sinners will be forgiven.

it says that eternal hellfire is a real place in the (sinner's) future, and so does climate change

 

[butchersapron]

ok, i could have made it clearer by asking:

"is climate change just a modern expression of christianity in terms of personal responsibility?"

The OP was utterly devoid of the notion of personal responsibility, actually, it went further, it rejected the idea of personal responsibility as a component of christianity

"you are going to die in agonising, anxious hellfire, and it's YOUR fault, and there's nothing you can do about it!!! mwahahahhahahaha"

You're now, somehow, asking the exact opposite

 

[cesare]

i do not understand how the 'collectivity' could possibly be 'guilty' in the way you seem to be suggesting


how can the collectivity AND the individual both be responsible? If only 5 people in the world caused all the carbon emissions, would the collectivity still be responsible?

But you see, this is where you're being encouraged down that whole Ayn Rand + religious/mystic objectivism route innit.

 

[max_freakout]

The OP was utterly devoid of the notion of personal responsibility,

no it wasnt


from the OP:

it's YOUR fault,

= its your responsibility

 

[Crispy]

how can the collectivity AND the individual both be responsible?

Duh