12
Feb
16

Unless it changes, capitalism will starve humanity by 2050

I’m posting the reference to this article because it touches on issues I’ve addressed recently in other posts.
_________________________________________________________________________

Unless it changes, capitalism will starve humanity by 2050
[Forbes]
By Drew Hansen
____________
climate changeProfessors Christopher Wright and Daniel Nyberg published Climate Change, Capitalism and Corporations last fall, arguing that businesses are locked in a cycle of exploiting the world’s resources in ever more creative ways.
“Our book shows how large corporations are able to continue engaging in increasingly environmentally exploitative behaviour by obscuring the link between endless economic growth and worsening environmental destruction,” they wrote. (my emphasis – Tim)

More from the article:

Capitalism has generated massive wealth for some, but it’s devastated the planet and has failed to improve human well-being at scale.
Species are going extinct at a rate 1,000 times faster than that of the natural rate over the previous 65 million years.
Since 2000, 6 million hectares of primary forest have been lost each year. That’s 14,826,322 acres, or just less than the entire state of West Virginia.
Even in the U.S., 15% of the population lives below the poverty line. For children under the age of 18, that number increases to 20%.
The world’s population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050.
How do we expect to feed that many people while we exhaust the resources that remain?

Human activities are behind the extinction crisis. Commercial agriculture, timber extraction, and infrastructure development are causing habitat loss and our reliance on fossil fuels is a major contributor to climate change.

see complete article here: http://news.yahoo.com/unless-it-changes–capitalism-will-starve-humanity-by-2050-014619431.html

11
Feb
16

Forums and “Spiritual” Elitism

I’ve been a frequent contributor to Christian forums for well over 10 years. I was also moderator of one until I resigned over a disagreement with the forum owner about a false prophecy that the site had promoted.

I’ve now decided to “resign” my last remaining forum membership because of an increasing display of “spiritual elitism” where differing opinions are frequently being dismissed as being “of the flesh”, while those who agree are recognised as being “of the spirit”.
Or others are accused of relying on their own understanding, while the “elite” are clearly heeding the Spirit.

Such attitudes are a convenient way of quenching discussion by more or less saying “I’m speaking God’s message” so if you disagree with me you disagree with God.
It’s just a different way of prefacing communication of ideas with the phrase “God told me…” or “God showed me…”. None of these allow anyone the freedom to assess teaching, or ideas they’ve heard, for themselves. It contradicts Pauls admonition that each of us needs to test all things.

As for the kind of spiritual maturity that is being claimed; I suspect one characteristic of GENUINE spiritual maturity is that it does not need to flaunt it. It’s not necessary to LITERALLY incorporate claims of one’s (assumed) spiritual stature into the argument being made, as a justification and support of one’s views.

09
Feb
16

Has America ever really been a “Christian nation”?

onog

The Judeo-Christian tradition is certainly entrenched in the founding story and America remains more religiously observant than any other western country. But is that the same as being a Christian nation?

Fascinating, enlightening, one of the best discussions I’ve hear in a long time. While it might all be “old news” to some, there were a few surprises (for me) in the podcast here:

ABC website:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/religionandethicsreport/has-america-ever-really-been-a-22christian-nation223f/6604500

Direct link to recording:
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2015/07/rer_20150708_1730.mp3

29
Jan
16

Man sees what he chooses to see.

I mentioned in an earlier post that Christian climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe has noted: “We are being told things by people who don’t like the solutions to climate change and have decided that it’s a lot better and a lot smarter to deny the reality of the problem than to acknowledge it exists but say you don’t want to do anything about it.”

Naomi Klein has pointed out something similar, that acceptance of climate change realities would demand actions that some find politically unpalatable – so they choose to reject evidence pointing to the reality of climate change.
Rather than accept the findings of the majority of climate scientists, they prefer to hunt out a few scientists (often not involved in climate science) who deny it.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4104925.htm

In other words, their stance is determined by what they PREFER to believe rather than by the validity of evidence.

I was talking to Gloria about this last night, and she very astutely pointed out that it’s the same situation when it comes to belief in God.
People choose to deny God, not because of lack of evidence, but because they don’t like the inevitable consequences of recognising Him. An acceptance of God requires a response; a consideration that He might require changes that will take us from the path we want to follow.

Some prefer to blind their eyes and block their ears than to see or hear a truth that requires a short-term price to be paid to gain a long term benefit.

22
Jan
16

What Colour is Oscar?

oscar-statuettesIt’s been many years since I took any interest in the Oscars. At one time I wouldn’t miss the TV broadcast of the awards and I’d do everything I could to make sure I didn’t hear any results before I saw it.
The broadcast in Australia was always delayed so it could be screened in prime time.
But as I said, that was long ago. These day’s I wouldn’t recognise the titles of most the films nominated.

The segment of the awards that kept my interest longest was the tribute to those who’d died during the year, where there could often be more surprises than in the announcement of the winners.
This year, in the lead up to an awards show that I won’t be watching, I couldn’t help being made aware of the controversy regarding the lack of African Americans among those nominated.

It seems there will be some boycotts.

As I said, I no longer take much of an interest in the awards themselves, but the threatened boycott raises one or two issues about race. Maybe it’s time to divide the nominations equally, so out of the standard five nominees for each category there should be one white nomination, one black nomination, one Hispanic, one Asian and one gay.*

Maybe it’s the only way to ensure all appearances of prejudice are avoided.
But then again, maybe it would be nice if race and colour played NO part at all – that ALL could consider others AND THEMSELVES as actors, directors etc., instead of actors/directors of a particular race or colour, and an Oscar category can be populated entirely with “white” names – or entirely with “black” names without leading to claims of racism.
And if only that same attitude could be seen across all sections of the community…

But maybe that’s expecting far too much in a world where racism clearly remains a serious problem, and where some sections of the community can continually be referred to (even by themselves) as “minorities”.

____________________________

* Just to be sure that no one misunderstands. That comment was not intended to be taken seriously. However, despite the intentional flippancy, it can’t be denied that a similar approach is often taken in the casting of TV shows in the US.

12
Jan
16

You cannot serve God and mammon.

In recent weeks I’ve become increasingly interested in political attitudes, but not because I have any hope in political solutions. My interest is in the way that clear political injustices are increasingly, (and sometimes unknowingly) supported by professing Christians, who have been seduced into endorsing ideologies that in various ways can be inconsistent with the gospel of the Kingdom.

Firstly there are policies that favour the ultra-rich over the poor.

In an earlier post I gave links to information about the changes in taxation rates that Ronald Regan introduced in the 1980s that reduced Tax on the richest by around two thirds. The resulting shortfall in revenue was recouped through cutting welfare expenditure.

Unsurprisingly, and not coincidentally, those massive tax and welfare cuts were followed by a skyrocketing rate of homeless rate within the USA.

Regan’s practices were echoed after the 2008 economic crash. The financial catastrophe created by unethical and immoral banking practices led the US and other governments around the world to pay 100s of billions of dollars to bail out the offending banks, while the victims of the bank’s immoral practices continued to be made homeless through foreclosures.

[One only has to google “home foreclosures” to see how the heartbreak of many families is still being exploited as a profit-making exercise by opportunistic business people].

Ultimately THAT is the kind of political practice that many Christians are endorsing when they offer support to the right wing political parties they seem to favour.

A second example is the incredible support given to gun ownership by many American Christians. That’s something else I’ve recently addressed with a link to a video interview with a minister whose ministry lost support when he spoke out against the American love affair with guns.

One only has to see some of the gun-supporting arguments raised by Christians to see how quickly irrationality can strike in relation to this issue.

A third concern is the overwhelming denial of Climate change within the political ideology supported by so many Christians. It’s a denial that Christians have often echoed without giving the matter much thought for themselves.
I’ve read remarks from a few people recently who point out that the denial doesn’t come from an assessment of the available evidence; it comes from an unwillingness to accept the essential political changes that will be required to address the implications of climate change.

As Christian climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe has said: “We are being told things by people who don’t like the solutions to climate change and have decided that it’s a lot better and a lot smarter to deny the reality of the problem than to acknowledge it exists but say you don’t want to do anything about it.”

Again I’ve posted a video interview with Hayhoe in a previous post.

I’m concerned that these things (and similar issues) undermine the credibility of Christians and  the gospel they may try to promote. Some of the policies associated with these issues directly contravene central aspects of the gospel: exploitation of the vulnerable, trusting in violence and denial of the truth when the truth becomes costly.

When I’ve considered all of these things, I’ve come to a conclusion that in summary illustrates a choice between two paths – a choice that at heart is related to a warning Jesus gave; something about the impossibility of serving two masters.

08
Jan
16

The Armor of Light

The Armor of Light: New Documentary Makes the Evangelical Case for Gun Control.

How on earth could ANYONE claiming to be an Evangelical Christian have such a love affair with gun ownership and put so much faith in firearms?




Blog Stats

  • 45,786 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 200 other followers


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 200 other followers