A Christian Perspective On The Environment

The Red Line Project to show glacial melt

Is there a Christian perspective on the environment? I think so. It’s not complicated. We are given a unique position in the world, by God. He put “all things in subjection to him.” He gave Adam dominion over the animals. We’re basically in charge. But that doesn’t mean we are free to use up the earth or to misuse it. To despoil it. Like all God gives us, we are to be good stewards. Which means we enjoy it, but we care for it.

At the same time, that doesn’t mean we are to place environmental concerns over human concerns. In truth, the two are linked, but at times a human need must take president.

Another consideration is, what we are to care most about in the short term verses the long term. If we want to remove waste from where people live, for instance, is it OK to dump it in the rivers and oceans? I think most people now would say, NO. Resoundingly. Loudly. But once, that was the solution reasonable people came to. They were thinking short term, not long term.

Which brings us to the issue of global warming, or more accurately called climate change. And even more accurately labeled the anthropogenic (man-made) climate change.

Depending on who you listen to, this is a settled issue, based on known science, and requires our immediate attention OR it is a manufactured alarmist non-problem, intended to bilk wealthy nations of billions in order to even the economic playing field.

The two positions are polar opposites, and they involve scientists and the UN and government agencies and lots of money.

The confusing thing to me is that you can find supporters of both positions, equally passionate, equally sure they have the numbers in their favor.

I’m a little wary of both sides, to be honest, because I know it’s possible to manipulate data to say whatever you want it to say. You can form the questions of a poll, for instance, to include a greater number of people in a category. Or less. It’s as simple as asking, Are you a Christian? or asking, Are you a Bible-believing Christian?

But we’re talking about science! That’s not subject to manipulation, is it?

We’d like to think that’s the case, but here’s the issue with climate change.

The claim is that the levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), which creates a greenhouse effect, have been on the rise, and we have got to stop it. The greatest culprit is fossil fuels, so we need to replace that energy source with “clean” energy.

But is the claim true?

Certainly, CO2 is on the rise. That’s a measurable, verifiable fact. But not just humans create CO2. Also the question must be answered if in fact the rising CO2 levels can be equated with rising temperatures—i.e., a warmer climate worldwide.

Some of the measurements scientists take at the Antarctic and elsewhere certainly look as if there’s a correlation between the two.

Then I came across this 2017 article in the Boston Globe, “Why are climate-change models so flawed? Because climate science is so incomplete” by Jeff Jacoby. In part he says

. . . The list of variables that shape climate includes cloud formation, topography, altitude, proximity to the equator, plate tectonics, sunspot cycles, volcanic activity, expansion or contraction of sea ice, conversion of land to agriculture, deforestation, reforestation, direction of winds, soil quality, El Niño and La Niña ocean cycles, prevalence of aerosols (airborne soot, dust, and salt) — and, of course, atmospheric greenhouse gases, both natural and manmade. A comprehensive list would run to hundreds, if not thousands, of elements, none of which scientists would claim to understand with absolute precision.

What’s more he says, that CO2 is actually only a very small part of our atmosphere: “about 400 ppm (parts per million), or 0.04 percent.” Which begs the question? would a rise in the amount of CO2 possibly have so great an affect on the climate of the world?

The camp that believes climate change is a real, dire threat to humankind, certainly thinks so.

I may be somewhat simplistic in my approach to the topic. I believe God will do what He will do. We aren’t going to “save the planet” if He wants to destroy it. At the same time, we shouldn’t be foolishly playing tag on the freeway. By that I mean, we shouldn’t knowingly and obviously put ourselves in jeopardy.

We are though. In jeopardy.

The more serious issue is not the condition of our climate but of our spiritual lives. If we neglect our relationship with God we are definitely putting our lives, our souls in danger. And that’s for now but also on into eternity.

Published in: on January 25, 2019 at 6:14 pm  Comments (44)  
Tags: , , ,


  1. I do not know if you Americans have heard of David Attenborough Becky, but he has been making documentaries about wild life for about 4 decades and he has seen and filmed almost everything that exists on our planet. He would not lie, he is an honest and creditable human being and a scientist, so why do religious people not believe him when he claims the realities of climate change?

    Liked by 3 people

    • I looked him up, Steve and watched a YouTube video of his top ten moments. It certainly is apparent he’s had a lot of experience in and with nature.


      Liked by 1 person

      • Glad you enjoyed the video Becky, this amazing man has seen what climate change has done to the planet, therefore I do not know why you would quote this Jeff Jacoby who is only a politically conservative American journalist who has no idea of the reality and science outside of his masters pay cheque and political views.

        Liked by 1 person

        • You make a valid point, Steve. But the Jacoby guy included quotes from what seem like credible, scientific sources.

          I’ve done more research on the matter, and the issue seems to revolve on whether or not the warming we have experienced for a couple decades is part of the natural ebb and flow of climate fluctuations or if it’s man-made. I’ve read articles on both sides and they both seem convincing.

          I’m of the “don’t panic” school, largely because I think God is in control, not we humans. We won’t “fix” or “save” the planet if God wants to rain judgment on us. But I’m also of the “be a good neighbor and don’t trash the planet” mindset. I don’t think that’s enough for most AGW proponents, but I think this is a reasonable position for someone who believes that God makes the ultimate and final call about our future, while giving humans the job of oversight.


          Liked by 1 person

          • Please look up the Greenhouse Effect.

            You only bring up CO2, which is just one of many greenhouse gases. The two bigger greenhouse gases are methane and water vapor. CO2 (and more recently methane) have gotten more publicity because there is a positive correlation between humans burning fossil fuels (CO2 is a byproduct of a combustion reaction; see: Chemistry 101) and CO2 molecules in the atmosphere (which can be measured across historical periods through proxies). Methane is on the rise due to large scale cattle ranching (methane is a byproduct of cows eating). Different gases have different effects on the greenhouse because of their different sizes/chemical properties, so while a chemical may have a small overall presence, it can have a disproportionate affect.

            There is very little doubt in the Climate Science community (as in people who are actually studying climate science as opposed to people with different backgrounds with opinions on something they haven’t actually studied) pretty much all agree that humans have caused the climate to change (only 3% have alternative ideas); disagreement exists in exactly how bad the problem is (how long until humans are irrevocably screwed) and what can be done to reverse it (if anything).

            Policies to combat Climate Change aren’t to “save” the planet from a nefarious threat; they are (mostly*) to keep humans from continuing to screw up the planet.

            *There are a few plans for “cleaning up” the atmosphere being tossed around, but they’re not particularly cost effective. By far the consensus is that we need to cut CO2 emissions because it’s the “easiest” way to reduce the water vapor greenhouse gas (the biggest culprit for climate change). Essentially, increasing CO2 caused moderate changes to the water cycle in the amount of Evaporation that was going on, thus further increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, causing a feedback loop. Decreasing carbon my not fix anything (we may already be beyond hope), but continuing at current levels WILL make it worse.

            God didn’t cause this problem (unless God created the Internal Combustion Engine). Humans have to be the ones to correct our mistake.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Catherine, what you’ve said coincides with the things I read that were stating the climate change problem, but nothing answers the 2017 Boston Globe article. That’s what I think people need to address—on one hand that position says, the issues are far more complex and we humans aren’t going to fix it by “going green” whereas the other position seems to ignore the complexity and put all the “you can do it” into our hands. I’ll say again, the truth is not up for a vote. Just because “97%” of climate scientists say one thing, doesn’t mean we ought not listen to the 3% and what conclusions they’ve reached.

            I agree with you that humans need to care for our environment and early into the Industrial Revolution, we were not. We viewed (in general) natural resources as unlimited and given for us to use as we pleased. That was wrong and we’ve had to undo a lot of the pollution we caused. But in reality, we are not in a remarkably different position today. We are making decisions today without really knowing the long term effects. Like using nuclear power instead of carbon based. We have no idea what will come of the nuclear waste that we admit isn’t biodegradable. Plastic was the same. It was so much better than glass . . . until it wasn’t. Now we’re outlawing plastic grocery bags and plastic straws. So we have no idea what long term affects of cell phone use might be or the new light bulbs we have to use in California. Like batteries, they are not just like any other waste. They need to be handled specially. Will that be good for the environment in the long term? We are doing a lot of guessing. That’s why so many of these climate change models have had to be reworked because they simply weren’t matching with actual experience. Some caution seems appropriate instead of jumping from one band wagon to another.


            Liked by 1 person

          • It depends on what you mean by caution.

            Most of the soundest green ideas are really just a return to the old ways; building practices that take advantage of natural heating and cooling; organic and small scale farming that relies less on fertilizer, water, and pesticides; making cities pedestrian friendly; etc.

            Electric cars aren’t new technology. They were invented at the same time as gas and steam powered vehicles, but the patons were bought and sat on. Can you imagine where battery technology would be if we’d had 100 years of innovation?!

            I have a BA in environmental science and we looked at fracking in one of my classes. I came down on the fence about the process for one very clear reason: we don’t know what the chemicals they use to separate the oil/natural gas from the water and rock is. There are about 200 different processes and it could be as harmless as ground up green beans OR some chemical known to cause cancer. I end up come down against fracking because of the lack of transparency; the process could be fine, but the companies refuse to release “trade secrets”.

            Pipelines are the same way. All pipelines leak and some explode. But the pipeline companies treat residents like they’re children when the residents want confirmation that there is a plan for WHEN the disaster happens (pipeline proponents want to live in a fantasy world of IF).

            I’d argue that my feelings against fracking and pipelines are the cautious route (I’d probably support them if there was more transparency, depending on what they admit to), but a lot of conservatives would call me an anti-capitalist.

            Being cautious sounds good on paper, but from what I’ve seen play out, the cautious folks are called radicals even though their actual plans are just common sense.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. You capture the complexity of the problem very well. We are caretakers and will stand under judgment for the way we have treated God’s creation. The fact that we are forgiven all our sins is not license to be careless with creation, but rather an additional reason to do the best we can to care for creation, while also giving our neighbors the best care we can. J.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Ha, not to be an offender for a word, and sure to raise the ire of Christian and atheist alike, but as the concerns are legit as to being caretakers of God’s earth, first, one would have to prove the earth is a planet!

    2ndly, that for global warming to be real, the earth needs proven to be a globe. Loaded with contradictions from both ends, but rest assured, if the godless clowns Degrasse and Nye are FOR something, any believer should rightly be concerned.

    Not the thing we like to engage in, but I’m convinced people in general of all stripes REFUSE to consider their idolatry of borrowed knowledge.

    Still, good points re care taking of God’s creation.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Interesting thoughts, ColorStorm. The video I watched that started all this claimed that the “crisis” is made up and we only need to follow the money to see why. On the other hand, in my atheist FB group a member pointed out the money tied up in preserving the status quo.

      Because the science seems much more complex than what hits the media, I tend to think the money and power really might be at the fulcrum of the issue. But that still doesn’t give me a lot of clarity.

      I only get clarity from what the Bible says about our responsibility, and I’m happy to stay right there. 😉


      Liked by 2 people

      • As far as responsibility B, I laugh because the godless always boast of our alleged evolutionary advancement, yet look at the rivers that are made dump sites- the smog caused by the money makers, sure seems to be going backwards in progress, still, follow the money, ‘the love of money is the root…….’. So yeah, not much to brag about in the so called Age of Enlightenment.

        I say: feed the birds, and be a friend of God. 😊

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Becky, the climate change deniers are the same as your Christian brethren who will rubbish biological evolution and science, the flat Earthers will deny a global Earth just as the deniers of the holocaust, the moon landings and 911, the human behaviour of denialism to reject reality will always fuel their misinformation and conspiracy train that will keep pounding along the tracks until it runs out of steam and they will then melt into the collection of fools throughout history.

    Liked by 2 people

    • You’ve made a fundamental mistake, Steve—supposing Christians are behind all the conspiracy theories and are the “deniers,” when in fact, all kinds of people jump in on weird and unfounded beliefs. Seriously. A person can be right-wing conservative without being a Christian. There are lots of people who buy into the “return to the good old days” idea. And their reasons behind that philosophy have nothing to do with Christianity. Some of them I don’t even understand. A fear of government? A lot of that. But the holocaust? What’s the point in taking the position that it never happened? Maybe anti-Semitic. But 911? Who would conjure up those false ideas? Maybe people who wanted war in the Middle East. I don’t know. But don’t you see? There is no common thread in all these. Just people with fears—irrational fears. And of all people in the world, Christians have reason to hope instead of fear. So, Steve, you are lumping groups together in a way that shows you don’t understand the arguments and concerns of people who are cautious about AGW. Yes, some even deny, but some only say, We don’t know enough yet. So even all the people who are not on board with climate change can’t even be lumped together. Think this out, Steve.


      Liked by 1 person

      • Sure, I know Becky that Christians are not behind all of the conspiracy theories on the planet and I do not mean to suggest that, but they are mostly behind two of the major ones regarding biological evolution and climate change, with a fair amount behind the flat Earth concept because it says so in the Bible.

        I think the good old days are mostly mythical because as long as I remember people have always been claiming this was a fact, however I am old enough to remember that it was no rose garden. Before judging you have to take into account the 1960’s world population was 3 billion as against todays population of 7.7 billion, so of course there are many more problems.

        The 911 conspiracy has something to do with your government at the time of having knowledge of the event to setting it up themselves one way or another. You say these people are just people with irrational fears.

        This is how I view Christians and all religious people, on the one hand you say you have hope and reject the fear; however I am sure the torment of hell would be a very strong incentive for many of the ancients to worship their gods. If hope and faith is all that is required to follow God why on Earth would a God of love create a hell?

        I do understand the people the arguments and concerns of people who are cautious about AGW. We do know enough about it as it has been documented for 30 years, however people seem to love a controversial issue and ignore the facts, many, like yourself are saying it is God who is directing the destruction and the human element is basically under his direction as every other disaster must be, and many are just outright science deniers, some do not want change as it may cost them their job or increase power bills and some believe it will be the ruination of their countries economy etc.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Exactly, Steve. There are all kinds of motivating factors when it comes to what a person believes about climate change. But because climate is not weather, and needs time to actually create a pattern, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say we really have not studied the data on climate and the temperature of the earth long enough to know what the trend is, whether man has some hand in it, and if what’s happening in the last fifty years or more is anomalous or if it fits the patter we would expect–the “correction” the earth would naturally make after a cooling period.

          As far as the other conspiracies are concerned, I’m glad you realize Christians are not behind all those. As for the flat earth issue, the Bible says nothing about a flat earth. In fact, as I pointed out in a FB discussion about the matter, there are references to “the circle of the earth” and the like. So if anyone is telling you “the Bible says so,” you can correct them. That’s simply not true.

          I understand that you view people who believe something supernatural as irrational. I hope that you are seeing something a little different. There’s a divide between the irrational who use “blind faith” or superstition, and those of us who have reason to put our trust in a God who can do things that are beyond us.


          Liked by 1 person

          • Becky, yes motivating factors are commonly expressed to actually avoid looking at the facts, exactly why all conspiracies keep working. As I have said if a minority of people and scientists cannot accept 30 years of studying evidential data on the effects and causes of such a serious issue that will impact on our children’s futures I doubt they will ever believe it, even while the global sea levels rise to drown them in their homes.

            I was not told that the bible claims a flat Earth, I can read it, and it is clear to everyone they did not know it was a globe. The circle of the Earth and the four corners literally means what you see standing on Earth and neither identify the global shape of the Earth because they could not have known it was global. Ask your friend Colour storm he has got something right for once.

            Three entries within the Bible mention pillars and in those days pillars were the obvious supports for massive Roman built colosseums, therefore they mean exactly what they say, and it is not used as a “figure of speech” as just about every Christian is misled to believe.

            Consider that if they believed in the firmament of the heaven and the stars, sun and moon were to give light upon the earth with the waters that are above the heavens and the stars of heaven falling to the earth as a fig tree casting her untimely figs, this shows their level of understanding the natural workings of Earth and the universe, no wonder they wanted to have gods.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Please, Steve. Have you never said the sun is setting? One thing you need to learn is HOW to read the Bible. If it is not speaking scientifically, don’t take it as a statement about science. I could double down on the things that show the ancient Hebrews understood a lot more about the earth than you give them credit for, and NOWHERE does the Bible call the earth flat.


            Liked by 2 people

          • Sorry missed this part of the previous comment.

            “and those of us who have reason to put our trust in a God who can do things that are beyond us.”

            You are indoctrinated to believe that God exists Becky. Indoctrination is real and we have seen what extremities it can reach when people become fanatical and radicalised. Religions and their followers at all stages of indoctrinated devotion is a time honoured human condition since the cave man.

            Liked by 1 person

          • No, Steve. I’ll say once again. I am not indoctrinated into believing God exists. I experience Him every day. Not because I am doing some rote, traditional activity I’ve been told from my youth up that I must do.

            Along with the book of John, why don’t you read a book by an atheist who was indoctrinated in atheist and then became a Christian.

            InsanityBytes, whose blog you visit from time to time, is just such a person. She will tell you that she was about as far from indoctrinated to believe in God as you can imagine. But God saves all kinds of people–the Huroni from Ecuador, the Mormon born into a polygamist home, an atheist professor at Oxford, an Indian Hindu on the bed of suicide, and on and on. There simply is “one size fits all” when it comes to Christianity. Your reading of the gospel of John should show you that: an educated Jew who was high up in the leadership of the religious faction known as Pharisees, a Samaritan women who was too ashamed to go get water from the well with the other women in her town because she had five failed marriages and was currently living with a man. Or look at the disciples: Matthew, the tax collector who most would consider a Roman collaborator at best, and a greedy cheat at worst; Simon, the terrorist who had advocated for the overthrow of Roman rule in Judea; Peter and his brother and their friends, plain fishermen. What did those guys have in common? Not much, until they came to Jesus.


            Liked by 2 people

          • Becky, indoctrination is not something you are in control of. It is a brain changing process that happens over time.

            As an adult atheist in the absolute dictionary terms of an atheist and not simply a fence sitter contemplating that God may or may not exist, I would expect almost every phycologist and most neurological scientists would believe indoctrination was a major factor in religious belief.

            Politically, indoctrination is a tool for separating the classes in societies and we can point to many historic cases of taking the indoctrinated masses into state wars, riots and terrorism.

            Inculcating a person with ideas and attitudes of an ideology and imparting doctrine in an authoritative manner such as through catechism classes of the Catholic Church or similar events on a frequent basis often with the use of highlighting emotional events and collectivism ideals without exposing or allowing any room for doubt or redress are very powerful mind control procedures and when including the application of peer pressure, parental controls on children and communal consolidation attitudes you have very powerful tools to allow control individuals or as we have seen control of the masses.

            Most recipients would be swept into ideological indoctrination without realisation and without being consciously aware their brain was literally being changed, as have been identified through neurological scientific studies.

            I do not claim it does not occur with great frequency iwithn non-religious contexts. In Albania and the former USSR programmes sponsored by the government instituted atheism as part of their political doctrines for many years.

            Can you understand a non-religious person believing in reality as they are aware of it around them in the natural world they live in and they understand that events such as ghosts and other apparitions are irrational mind tricks and can usually be explained or identified through scientific results?

            Then take this rational person who has never been religiously involved maintaining their usual lives and within a few weeks of exposure to religious teachings they take on the transition into believing strongly in supernatural events undertaken by a supernatural identity. Events that were normally seen as unbelievable and impossible events for them have now become a reality, a huge commitment and a complete reversal of their entire knowledge base that allows the rejection and wilful ignorance of everything not in support of their new ideology.

            As you can deduct, indoctrination is powerful and with adults indoctrination it happens more easily and more often than not (without being prejudiced) to the weaker minded in our societies, however this is not to do so much with the level of intelligence of individuals but there are many influences and it is mostly with what lies within our subconscious minds and that is another issue altogether.

            Liked by 1 person

          • I am calling flag on the field here. Becky has told you she was not indoctrinated. I have told you I was not. IB had said likewise. You completely ignore what people say about the reality of their own lives and insist you must know better. Flag is for excessive hubris and extraordinary arrogance.

            Since you are all about proof theN I must insist that you provide such that Becky was indoctrinated. We will need dates, times, locations and by whom the indoctrination was inflicted. If you can’t supply this, then your insistence that she was must be retracted. Your assertions are absurd and baseless and your insistence they are true despite what the person themselves say is bordering on lunacy.

            You insist we were all indoctrinated

            Prove it or be proven to be a blow hard or even liar.

            @Becky. Sorry to be so blunt, bit Steve is completely ignoring anything you say to preach his nonsensical atheist sermons. In an earlier comment he grouped you in with a bunch of people to make you look like a fringe case. In fact you were, in a sisweats sort of way, accused of being a Holocaust denier. Just a convoluted way of saying you and all Christians are anti Semites. Of course once called on it Steve will deny he meant it that way. He said it, he meant it, and the damage is done even if he back pedals on it.

            Liked by 2 people

          • I was explaining what indoctrination is if you read it properly and I would suggest you have been a major victim Wally.

            As usual you get your knickers in a twist as you read what you want to believe. I do not believe I accused anybody of being a Holocaust denier or anti Semites and it certainly was not my intension as I do not believe that I have ever blogged one. From memory I think I was listing some conspiracies that are currently active.

            By the way Wally what the hell is “sisweats” if you are finished dragging me through the mud?

            Liked by 1 person

          • Steve. You lie. You have repeatedly said Becky, IB and I are indoctrinated despite our personal knowledge we are not. Saying you suggest we are major victims is saying it.

            Yes. You intentionally grouped all those things together with Christianity in order to make Christians look like nut bags. Your entire world view is void and nonsensical so straw men are your only hope.

            Steve that was a typo which I asked Becky to fix. My knickers are not twisted. That is how you and other atheists pack dogs classify any Christian who challenges your broad sweeping word salad assertions and calls you out for the lies you tell. You spew 500 word word bombs that a child can dismantle with two words. I don’t drag you through the mud Steve , I just observe your living conditions.

            Here they are. You have repeatedly asserted numerous Christian bloggers were indoctrinated when they say, based in what THEY know of their own lives that they are not. Here are the two words that dismantle you completely.

            Prove. It.

            Becky, again if my directness bothers you feel free to delete my comments and tell me to move on. But I believe allowing Steve to lie with impunity is dangerous because somebody will believe his lies just because he repeats them so many times with such vehemence. That ironically is one of the methods for negative indoctrination. Go figure.

            Liked by 2 people

          • Yes I have said that most Christians including you guys are indoctrinated. The comment that I wrote about indoctrination was explaining the process more than anything and it is based on scientific studies and is far from a lie.

            “But I believe allowing Steve to lie with impunity is dangerous because somebody will believe his lies just because he repeats them so many times with such vehemence. That ironically is one of the methods for negative indoctrination. Go figure.”

            I see it was a red rag to you Wally, and it suggests you are worried that I will make some people aware of the recruitment systems used.

            “Negative indoctrination?” well if what I wrote helps de-convert any of your Christian recruits are they then not allowed to be exposed to this information to make up their own minds?

            You are sounding a bit like big brother or a protectant father and you are confirming my belief that you put a lot of work into these indoctrination programs and you become very protective.

            Liked by 1 person

          • No, Steve, you’re twisting what Wally said. At this blog, and his, I believe, people are allowed to voice a difference of opinion. Just think about the numbers of comments of yours which I not only let stand but welcomed. But indoctrination? No! I won’t condone that on my blog. I will stand against it.

            I’m beginning to wonder if you actually know what indoctrination means, Steve. From the Oxford Dictionary: “teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.” UNCRITICALLY is the key word. Without being exposed to the opposing view, without considering the weaknesses and strengths, without learning about alternative ideas. Steve, cults do that. And apparently atheists who don’t read the Bible or Christian biographies. But your average Christian is surrounded by alternative thoughts and lifestyles and world systems. We have a greater concern that we don’t drift away from the truth.

            Do you believe in Truth, Steve? Do you think by holding to truth a person is demonstrating “indoctrination”? In this discussion, I honestly have to say that you exhibit more uncritical beliefs than either Wally or I do. Which makes the whole thing kind of amusing for it’s irony. Except your eternal destiny is at stake. That makes it eternally serious.

            May God open your eyes, Steve.


            Liked by 2 people

          • Wally does more twisting than a dancing snake and I might add he has done a good job of getting you to get angry at me Becky.

            As far as indoctrination goes it is a very real thing, it is often a dangerous thing that has been identified throughout history and yet you only consider it happens in cults. You cannot understand how closed that opinion is.

            Definition of indoctrinate verb from the religious dictionary Merriam Webster:
            “To teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs.”

            For example: An ideology that will not consider that science can prove the great Biblical flood never happened, nor would the confirmed science of biological evolution be accepted nor the Quran’s depiction of Jesus. Therefore your beliefs are the true ones and set in concrete uncritically, right Becky?

            My eternal destiny is death and dust and that I have no doubt is the future for me and all of us. This is our only life Becky, live it and love it now because it is all we will get.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Steve, we are not twisting. You insist we are victims of indoctrination. We tell you we are not, because we understand what happened to us clearly. Your insistence that you know our experience better than we know it is simply ludicrous. That’s all we are saying. And your further insistence that you, and only you were able to escape whIle we if less fortitude and intelligence were not? Of course that irritates people.

            Liked by 2 people

          • Truly, this is amazing, Steve. I gave you clear examples of people who came to faith in Christ without any sort of indoctrination and you simply ignore it? Plus, you yourself stand as an example that what you are saying is not true. You have told me more than once that you experienced this “indoctrination” as a child, and yet you rejected it. So it really isn’t indoctrination, is it. I suggest you research actual people who have faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ, and not those who suppose what our experiences have been. Otherwise, it’s nothing more than hypotheses based on preconceived ideas and without any actual fact.

            I will also again draw the line between those who have “blind faith” or superstition and those who have saving faith in Jesus Christ. There really is a difference: truth vs. error.


            Liked by 2 people

          • Yes you are correct Becky, when I was a child the Sunday school people tried to indoctrinate all of us. I was always restless in a classroom and I found the Bible study absolutely boring and I equated the stories of Jesus to another fictional Father Christmas story etc.

            The idea of my last comments on your blog that expressed this:
            “As an adult atheist in the absolute dictionary terms of an atheist and not simply a fence sitter contemplating that God may or may not exist,”

            What this means and maybe I did not explain it well enough, is if someone was not raised as a child in a religious environment but is a susceptible person, has some fence sitter beliefs of the supernatural or gods, or are requiring some divine guidance for a turbulent life or maybe something in their subconscious had motivated them to know more, therefore they have a greater chance of being indoctrinated than someone like myself who cannot force himself to believe things such as in the Bible that I recognise as impossible, but for anyone who allows their mind to submit to any sort of truth of what they are taught by a priest or any theist they will eventually take on incredible beliefs that normally may have run against the logic they used to apply to life.

            I know you do not believe anything I have written because that is your natural defence of an indoctrinated ideology. It is protected by rejecting everything that goes against your faith, such as equating my comments to possibly being motivated by Satan trying to prise you away from God, but this belief would also be due to the chemical and electrical changes that took place in your brain during the indoctrination process. There are not many people who can easily free themselves from this state of mind.

            “Otherwise, it’s nothing more than hypotheses based on preconceived ideas and without any actual fact.”

            If you want to find facts about indoctrination, mind control, brain washing or whatever it is, you will find them.

            “I will also again draw the line between those who have “blind faith” or superstition and those who have saving faith in Jesus Christ. There really is a difference: truth vs. error.”

            This again highlights indoctrination. Your values and doctrine even among all Christianity is the real truth and the others are in error. Out of the billions of people who have some level of belief regarding a god, you have the correct God and the correct way of worshipping this God, yet all the others have the same claims as you, therefore your faith is only a “hypotheses based on preconceived ideas and without any actual fact.”

            Liked by 1 person

        • Steve, apparently you cannot hear yourself at all. You are saying that ALL Christians are simply weak minded and the proof of that is your imagined brain change caused by religious “indoctrination.”

          These assertions are more wild than any story you could have heard about Father Christmas, and yet you seem to believe them without actually investigating the subject (other than your one article which lays out the hypothesis that there are changes in the brain which cause a person’s religious feelings–though there is NO WAY to show that the brain doesn’t change because of religious experiences and not the other way around).

          Look at the facts: you won’t read the Bible; you haven’t read any first hand accounts of an atheist who converted to Christianity; you accept only what atheists say about Christianity as true and discount anything Christians say about Christianity. And yet you claim Christians are indoctrinated. Those who say that they actually studied and researched Christianity with intent to disprove it—those, apparently, you consider to be liars. They have undergone adult indoctrination because they were fence sitters.

          Steve! This is almost unbelievable. I gave you the Oxford definition of indoctrinate. The idea of not looking at something critically leads to a “swallow it hook, line, and sinker” approach, and that’s what you exhibit, all the while accusing those who disagree with you of doing the very thing you do! It is, as I said before, so very ironic, it is laugh-out-loud humorous. Except for the stakes.

          I mean think about what you said about fence sitters. You are the classic example of someone not sitting on the fence. How then have you come to critically examine your beliefs? Do you? I doubt it. You simply say you don’t believe, you reason. Well, reason it out, Steve. Would a scientist ever make a conclusion without testing his hypothesis? That’s what you are doing. So obviously you are NOT using reason at all.

          All I can imagine is that somehow you came to some conclusion in your childhood, when YOUR brain wasn’t fully developed, and you simply are refusing to reexamine it because you’re afraid you’ve been wrong all your adult days. Well, why not get it right so you can enjoy eternity? That’s more important!


          Liked by 2 people

          • “You are saying that ALL Christians are simply weak minded”

            Wrong, I purposely did not say that as a derogative comment.
            Tell me then Becky why people believe in a flat Earth or a young Earth, or that man never landed on the moon, or that dinosaurs lived only a few thousands of years ago with man, or that climate change is a lie started by scientists, or that Darwin invented evolution to wipe out Christianity, or aliens built the pyramids, or that Obama was a Muslim, or chemtrails are a secret climate changing experiment, or that Elvis still lives, or that the deadly Aids virus was created by the CIA to wipe out homosexuals and African Americans on the orders of US president Richard Nixon etc?

            Many people succumbed to believing this stuff and millions still do, and maybe you agree with some of it but whatever you may think it points out the fact that we are all vulnerable when it comes to believing in things we are told that cannot be verified and not based on solid facts, therefore some people may have a weaker mind or less resistance in believing certain things than others.

            “your imagined brain change caused by religious “indoctrination.”

            Hardly imagined Becky, the human brain has the amazing ability to reorganize itself by forming new connections between brain cells when it learns something new, religious faith or any other ideals.
            A study published in the journal Social Neuroscience using an MRI machine has shown that Spiritual and religious practices can be rewarding with activating the feelings of love, music appreciation and mild drug effects. The experiences activate these sensations using the reward system called the nucleus accumbens releasing dopamine, which helps control a person’s mood.

            Scientists from the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders have discovered many areas of the brain involved in religious and spiritual experience that they believe supports the brain’s evolutionary form that developed belief to improve the chances of survival, meaning natural selection may have assisted individuals with religious beliefs through hardship.

            This site below has plenty of information about what happens inside your brain.

            “you accept only what atheists say about Christianity as true and discount anything Christians say about Christianity.”

            Honestly Becky, if there was any real evidence, I would expect the whole world would become Christians and so would I. Have you ever stopped to think why the world has thousands of religions and people are walking away from religions including Christianity in developed countries around the world?

            “The idea of not looking at something critically leads to a “swallow it hook, line, and sinker” approach, and that’s what you exhibit, all the while accusing those who disagree with you of doing the very thing you do! It is, as I said before, so very ironic, it is laugh-out-loud humorous. Except for the stakes.”

            Becky you believe in something that I do not believe exists. For you to believe in something such as a god you need to be convinced it is true one way or another usually from some level of indoctrination into an ideology. I am not convinced that your God exists, just as I do not believe the Earth is flat, it is quite simple, I am at the default state of not believing any god exist, therefore I must be very critical of what I am told, and I do laugh out loud when I am accused of having swallowed an atheist hook line and sinker.

            “How then have you come to critically examine your beliefs?”

            From history, the amount of copying between religious doctrines is mind boggling. The archaeology has disproven most of the events in the Bible and the contradictions and mistakes that make up the Bible have also thrown doubt on who the writers were not to mention the fraudulent artefacts and altered scriptures that have been uncovered by religious and non-religious scholars, and that is only for starters.

            “Well, why not get it right so you can enjoy eternity? That’s more important!”

            You are wrong Becky, that is not important. Maybe it is what drives you in life, however I do not place my happiness into the supernatural future, I depend on living it right now because the fact is regardless of how sad it seems to you, once you are dead, forever dead.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Steve, when you say someone is weak minded and therefore susceptible to indoctrination, it’s an unscientific claim that you cannot prove. But what is abundantly clear and what you do not address is that you exhibit all the traits of indoctrination. “Some distinguish indoctrination from education on the basis that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.” (Wikipedia) This is you, Steve. You refuse to go beyond what your atheist teachings tell you to think for yourself. You will not read, study, research, consider anything if it comes from a Christian point of view. Some time ago, for instance, I mentioned the renowned scientist Francis Collins and you immediately dismissed him because he’s a Christian. Never mind that he has published in the all-important peer-review journals and served as head of the Human Gnome Project. You won’t listen to him because he’s a Christian. Not because he doesn’t know science. He does. Not because he’s uninformed about the way the world works. He knows a great deal. No. You simply dismiss his ideas for one reason and one reason alone: he is a Christian and you have been indoctrinated to dismiss Christian ideas without thinking critically about them.

            You know, Steve, I think I’ve said this before, but you really don’t have anything to contribute to discussions here as long as you refuse to think critically, to study what you stand against so you know what you’re talking about. You state the same biased ideas without any evidence, you post the same types of links (I think this is the third time), and what’s disturbing to me is you don’t know how to read the very article upon which you base your opinions. You are so sure that the mind creates religion but you completely miss phrases like “seemingly indicating” and “does seem to show,” “Religion might be” or ” they may have created.” The scientists themselves aren’t sure!

            Even more egregious, you apparently have ignored this paragraph altogether: “Critics of Newberg’s work argue that you can’t reduce all religious behaviors to just meditating or praying [source: PBS]. Religion encompasses more than that. What, for example, might happen in the brain of someone doing charity work for the poor? What happens when someone makes a moral choice based on his or her belief system? Newberg’s work as of yet is focused on individual, private experiences, as opposed to the relationships and experiences that happen between other people”

            Religion encompasses more than meditation or prayer, and Christianity is not precisely a religion. I’ve written this in a recent blog post. Christianity is a relationship. But you’d know this if you studied what you stand against.

            Actually, Steve, those who reject Christianity have the evidence laid out before them, but they reject God because they don’t want to bow to His authority.


            Liked by 1 person

          • “Some distinguish indoctrination from education on the basis that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.” This is you, Steve.”

            Science deals in the current facts not faith. You have had the scientific views based on their knowledge about indoctrination, and it is clear you have to have an Ideology to accept to be indoctrinated. science is a reality and a factual process of finding evidence and truth, religions including yours are built on the insecurities of faith that are from scriptures written during times of traditional superstitious beliefs.

            That is really simple to see, you reject proven biological evolutionary facts but accept unbelievable events from ancient people that have no evidence, therefore how can you expect anyone to take you seriously?

            “You will not read, study, research, consider anything if it comes from a Christian point of view.”

            Sorry to be so harsh here Becky, but you know nothing of what I have done, and I am not as simple as you may think. I have spent many hours researching the specific claims and the assumptions from within the Bible and the factual information I find from real bonified and qualified archaeologists, palaeontologists, astronomists, cosmologists, biologists, psychologists environmental scientists, neuroscientists, human researchers and even from some Christian scholars the more I am convinced the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that your outdated Biblical instruction book is closest to being an ancient mythical story book.

            “Francis Collins and you immediately dismissed me because he’s a Christian.”

            If I recall correctly, I said he was a brilliant scientist, however I also said his work on the Human Genome Project developing a revolutionary method of screening genes for disease has nothing to do with God or the Bible.

            “You won’t listen to him because he’s a Christian.”

            Rubbish, I will listen and read anything he publishes about his work, however his personal beliefs are of no interest to me. I honestly do not know where you get these ideas from, just because a leading scientist in DNA is a Christian, it does not compel me to ignore the facts I have found through a process of elimination and become a Christian.

            “you have been indoctrinated to dismiss Christian ideas without thinking critically about them.”

            As I have said Becky, you need to have something such as an ideology that has a set of rules and a doctrine to be indoctrinated. I may follow science; however I do not pray to it, worship it, speak to it, love it or idolise it as in the religious context. Religious ideas are also nothing more than unsupported faith.

            “You know, Steve, I think I’ve said this before, but you really don’t have anything to contribute to discussions here as long as you refuse to think critically, to study what you stand against so you know what you’re talking about. You state the same biased ideas without any evidence,”

            Well Becky, I agree I have nothing more, you are not of my world, you have no understanding of what normality in this world is, you are constantly stuck within the superstitious world of ancient myths. The evidence of the real world sciences is obvious and abundant, and yes I agree there is some differing of opinions in the scientific worlds and things may change, however much of what is scientifically known already defies all arguments and it is these evidential facts that theists such as yourself will argue about just for arguments sake because it clashes with your ideals, always without evidence or expertise from real scientists to retaliate with.

            “you can’t reduce all religious behaviors to just meditating or praying [source: PBS]. Religion encompasses more than that.”

            I totally agree, however the issue was about the similarities of these practices.

            “Actually, Steve, those who reject Christianity have the evidence laid out before them, but they reject God because they don’t want to bow to His authority.”

            Well if there was any real evidence the world would be Christian by now would it not Becky? I do not want to bow to any god because they have no authority and cannot exist outside of a person’s brain.

            Good luck.

            Liked by 1 person

  5. Hey Becky, I really recommend “Eaarth” by Bill Mckibben.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. My comment should read sideways sort of way. Not sure what auto correct thought it was spelling there.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I agree Becky that no matter what is going on around us we still have a responsibility to be faithful stewards in the ways that we can. Someone who thinks we are doomed may say what is the point but the point is that we are commanded to be faithful stewards so no matter what things are outside of our control we can control our own choices.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. […] via A Christian Perspective On The Environment — A Christian Worldview of Fiction […]

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Good Analysis.

    Liked by 2 people

    • The numbers of experts speak for themselves. Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change. (Wikipedia)

      Liked by 1 person

      • Steve, I don’t know what article on Wikipedia you looked at. I couldn’t find the above quote, but the articles I looked at were actually kind of old, not as recent as the ones I looked at when I wrote this blog post. Once again, truth is not something up for a majority vote. You can claim a high number of scientists who claim AGW, but just this week I reviewed a number of books on Amazon, written by scientists, reviewed by scientists and even a fairly blunt meteorologist with data, that say the issue is far more complex than the popular notion claims. I am moving ever closer to the idea that people like that US Senator who posted a “Green New Deal” are more interested in economic change than climate change.


        Liked by 1 person

  10. 97% of all climate scientists agree that we are facing an increased rate of climate change and that this change is due to humans.

    CO2 is part of the problem whilst methane through agricultural endeavours make up a large percentage.

    I recommend ‘Cowspiracy’ for more tuned information.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. I think Christians should be among the ardent environmentalists, not to prioritize nature above human wellbeing, but there is an obvious connection between the health of our planet and our own physical wellbeing. I have never understood either why so many Christians are skeptical of climate change. The claim of “God is in charge and he can fix it if there’s a problem” seems uncharacteristically apathetic. We could say the same about sickness (“why take medicine, just let God heal us”) or any other problems we see. God gave us the wisdom and ability to fix the problems we see around us.
    -David (https://greenwalledchapel.home.blog/)

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: