One of the major early arguments–framed in the Bible as a dispute between Peter and Paul–was whether this new movement was still Jewish, or whether it should expand to encompass Hellenic peoples and practices (and thus necessarily lose much of its Jewish character). As is perhaps obvious, the argument resolved in shedding most of Christianity’s Jewish roots and embracing Greek and Roman thought, culture, and customs.  In so doing, the early religion broadened its reach beyond an insular minority, utilizing and adapting prevailing philosophies and religious symbols, in essence assimilating itself to the dominant culture.

The second argument does not directly play out in the Bible, but traces of its effects can be found in later arguments over the canon. Early on, there was a tension between those who called themselves Gnostic Christians, who believed that the most important duty of a Christian was to contemplate the mysteries of the divine and understand them thoroughly (and intellectually, in specific), and those who for lack of a better word I’ll call “Soterioriffic” Christians, who believed that understanding was far less important than faith and belief in the salvific power of Jesus and the religious practice in general.

While there is plenty of textual evidence that Jesus at least cared about understanding on some level (he often expresses frustration with the apostles being thick-headed), this argument settled out against the Gnostics in favor of a Christianity that was primarily concerned with being saved. This had the effect of making the religion much more accessible to the lower classes and slaves, who tended to have less education than the higher classes. Removing understanding of philosophy as a prerequisite for being Christian went a long way towards making the new religion take off in its Hellenic habitat.

Christianity could have easily developed in each case in a different way, either as a Jewish sect or a mystery cult (or both), but I am given to doubt whether such a Christianity would have survived to the present day in any form other than a historical or marginal curiosity.  Making the strategically superior choice each time pretty much guaranteed the survival of a robust Christianity (one with which we struggle to this very day).

I think the lessons from this have applicability in other social movements. Take environmentalism, for instance; there are many issues that fall under the umbrella of concern for human impact on the environment, from species loss to air and water quality to biome depletion. However, most of those issues have taken a back seat, having been overshadowed by Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).  Looking back at the strategic lessons of early Christianity, this choice of emphasis seems to me unwise.

Unlike most environmental issues of note, AGW is fairly abstract; it is not clear immediately upon finding out what it is why people in general should be concerned by it. Dead animals or toxic fumes or trees getting cut down are concrete, easy to understand topics, whereas in order to fully grasp the threat of AGW, it takes some effort to get educated on the issue. Even worse, in order to actually judge the merits of the arguments for AGW and possible response measures requires significant education in climatology. As the Gnostics found, the higher the education requirements for participating in the movement, the more difficulty one will have in convincing others of the urgency or necessity of one’s objective.

The other strategic error in my mind is that environmentalists chose to double-down on AGW long before there was decent evidence to show that they were right; in the intervening period, there were many good faith reasons to doubt the conclusion, leading to many reasonably concluding that the threat from AGW was overblown, opening the movement to charges that its stridency was driven by an agenda darker than simply preserving the climate equilibrium for human habitation. Had the movement instead focused on an area where the science was immediately more solid, such as ocean acidification, they could have taken aim at the same fossil fuel emissions from a stronger scientific footing.

Right now, despite easy targets and easy appeals, environmentalists struggle with their agenda by emphasizing difficult arguments and abstract problems. Meanwhile, Christianity, having made effective strategic choices, is still going strong. Decisions about what to emphasize and how accessible to make a movement can be the difference between success and failure.

(Note from Florien: Since I’m a capitalist, this does not reflect my views.)

I saw this video a few years back and was thinking about it today; it’s basically a mathematics lecture which proves that capitalism cannot work for very much longer as the dominant socio-economic system and why if it does we’re all absolutely screwed.

Click here to view the embedded video.

This simple mathematical lecture explains everything from peak oil to the population explosion. Hope y’all enjoy and it makes you think!

Incidentally, I know that there’s a risk of apocalyptic Christians abusing this post, but hey, they’re idiots so I don’t care :-)

Which is an interesting thought, and might be something to consider if oil was stored in underground lakes — which is what I assumed was the case. But oil is actually stored in rock. I learned this recently, so I thought I’d pass it on to those who didn’t know about this either:

Contrary to common belief, oil is not held in great underground lakes or caves. If you could “see” an oil reservoir, you would only notice a rocky structure, in which there seems to be no room for oil. But beyond the reach of the human eye, a world of often-invisible pores and microfractures entrap minuscule droplets of oil, together with water and natural gas.

Nature created these formations over millions of years. It started when huge deposits of vegetation and dead microorganisms piled up at the bottom of ancient seas, decomposed and got buried under successive layers of rock. High temperatures and pressures then slowly transformed the organic sediments into today’s oil and gas.

When such a reservoir is drilled, it is a bit like uncorking a champagne bottle. Freed from its ancient rocky prison, the reservoir’s internal pressure pushes oil to the surface (along with stones, mud and other debris). The process goes on until the pressure peters out. From then on, recovery must be assisted.

About one third of the oil in a reservoir is “immobile oil,” isolated drops trapped by strong forces within the pores of the rock. The remaining two thirds, though mobile, will not necessarily flow into the wells. In fact, usually about half of the mobile oil is stuck inside the reservoir because of geological barriers or low permeability. The situation is even worse when the oil is not a light liquid, but a heavy, viscous molasses-like substance. In that case, only a limited amount of it may be recovered through conventional technologies. (Leonardo Maugeri, “Squeezing More Oil from the Gound“)

So it looks like the earth isn’t going to cave in from extracting oil. Whew — another apocalypse averted!

Update: I spoke too soon — the oil subsidence apocalypse may soon be upon us!

Click here to view the embedded video.

He also says that the US became a powerful country because we acknowledged God (unlike, you know, all those other countries), and now it will decline as people turn into evil atheists.

The stupid, it burns! It’s hard to believe people actually watch his guy for anything but entertainment.

(via)

Today only 35 percent of the oil in the average oil field is recovered, meaning that about two thirds of the oil in known fields remains underground. That resource is rarely mentioned in the debate on the future of oil.

—Leonardo Maugeri, “Squeezing More Oil From the Ground” (Scientific American, Oct 2009)

Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where is existence is denied? If the human creature’s relationship with the Creator weakens, matter is reduced to egoistic possession, man becomes the “final authority,” and the objective of existence is reduced to a feverish race to possess the most possible.

Most of the people I’ve met who don’t care about the earth have been Christians. I’m sure my experience is biased, but I also haven’t met an atheist that isn’t concerned about our environment — though I’m sure there are some. Most Christians who don’t care about the environment do so on the basis that God has things under control and he’ll eventually torch the earth anyway. Atheists, on the other hand, believe this is the only home we have and we need to take care of it.

There are Christians who care about the environment, but that’s been a fairly recent bandwagon for them. The evangelical green movement has been gaining momentum, and I’m pleased with that.

But it’s just stupid to think that our environmental problems stem from atheism, when everyone knows it stems from denying the Flying Spaghetti Monster, bless His Holy Noodle.

(via)

“The U.S. airline industry discards enough aluminum cans every year to build nearly 58 Boeing 747s and enough paper to fill a football field–size hole 230 feet deep—that’s 4,250 tons of aluminum and 72,250 tons of paper. The 30 largest airports in the country, with the help of the airlines, create enough waste to equal the trash produced by cities the size of Miami or Minneapolis.”

—Airlines & Recycling: The Not-So-Green Skies

The earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood…. We can get into the theological discourse of that position, but I do believe God’s word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.

I find it disturbing someone who thinks like this is leading our country.

Here’s the video:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

It’s directed by the Coen Brothers.

Every advance in civilization has been denounced as unnatural while it was recent.

(Bertrand Russell, “An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish” (1943) in The Portable Atheist, p. 199)

I often laugh when I hear unnatural used synonymously for bad. What does natural even mean? That it comes about without our interference? But aren’t we part of nature? If we are, aren’t silicon and satellites just as natural as saliva and snapdragons?

Or if we’re not included in nature, then what business can we label domesticated vegetables, fruits, and animals as natural?

I also laugh when natural is used synonymously for good. Natural as in disease, disasters, dirt, death, and diarrhea?

Just because something is considered natural doesn’t mean it’s good, and just because it’s considered unnatural doesn’t mean it’s bad.

It used to be the counterculture that was confused about this, but now it has seeped into consumer culture. Thus almost every bag of food now says “all natural ingredients,” which means nothing.