Religion<\/strong>: the service and worship of God or the supernatural; commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.\nWorship<\/strong>: reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power or an act of expressing such reverence; a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual; extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem
\n
\n<\/span>
\nSo first off, not all men are religious (or women either, believe it or not). In order to be religious, a person must believe in the existence of a God or the supernatural. I don\u2019t. I am not religious. Second, there seem to be two main ways that the word \u201cworship\u201d can be used. The first has religious connotations and is directed to a deity. The second has no religious connotations whatsoever and involves \u201crespect\u201d or \u201cadmiration\u201d or \u201cdevotion to an object of esteem.\u201d I think that Phillips is likely playing fast and loose with these two meanings, using the word \u201cworship\u201d not in the sense of respect but rather using it to imply religious connotations.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nI look at what Dougy says here and take issue with his use of the word \u201call\u201d.\u00a0 Again, in order to formulate arguments to control his followers and sell stuff on his website, Doug has to generalize all his reasoning.\u00a0 Us against them is a favorite of his.\u00a0 In this case, \u201call\u201d is merely to ascertain the acquiescent up and down head jiggle he so achingly desires.\u00a0 The problem is, it isn\u2019t true.\u00a0 There are many who just don\u2019t care.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>
\nEven so, there is a grain of truth in what Phillips says. All men have ideals and things they value and work towards, whether they are religious or not. Some people, both Christians and atheists, serve only themselves. I personally am a humanist, which means that I believe in human potential and improving the world for humankind. I would prefer to serve my fellow humans rather than to serve some sort of imaginary deity. There are, however, also\u00a0Christian<\/em> humanists, who believe that God values humans and wants them to use their abilities to make the world a better place for all of humankind. So while we all do have ideals and things we value, it is nowhere near as simple as \u201call men either worship God or they worship the creature.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span>
\nIn the 18th century, many<\/span> (you can\u2019t argue with \u201cmany\u201d!) <\/span>began to worship the mind.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nMuch of the material of Vision Forum and those that preach their controlling teachings of patriarchy and the subordination of women contains the idea that \u201cto think or reason is evil\u201d.\u00a0 After all, man\u2019s heart is wicked and deceitful.\u00a0 Only the Bible matters.\u00a0 What is not contained in the Bible is inherently evil.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>The followers never stop to question why the leaders and the men and women that swallow this crap whole, get to use extra-biblical sources and reasoning (asinine faulty logic that disagrees with even Biblical references it pretends to tout) to prove their arguments.\n<\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nThe religion of that day was rationalism. In the 19th century, this god morphed into scientism. But science failed to provide the answers to ultimate questions. The men of the 20th century looked for a more immediate solution to the problems of humanity \u2014 they chose to worship the State. This failed. Statism proved to be a harsh taskmaster. In the absence of any real solutions from rationalism, scientism, and statism, men fixed their attention on a new god \u2014 or rather, an ancient God that just needed a new facelift.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span>
\nThat god is the earth.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nWha? Vision Forum is just making stuff up here. As for rationalism and science, the mind and our senses are all we have. Therefore, rationalism, which is simply using our brains, makes sense, and science, which is simply using our senses to learn about the world around us, also makes sense. <\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>
\nNow, rationalism and science have not \u201cfailed\u201d as Phillips claims. In fact, rationalism and science are what brought us vaccines, modern medicine, and fertilizers that increased crop yields and cut down on starvation. God never brought us any of this. Rationalism and science did.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nI would simply add that Doug is acting as if science has completed its course in the history of men when, in reality, science continues to discover new realms and clarify mistakes of the past, as well as solidify old theories as fact.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>
\nAs for \u201cstatism,\u201d it is true that many humans have turned to the state to fix problems that we see. And you know what? It\u2019s worked a whole heck of a lot better than looking to God. The state has curtailed child labor, guaranteed equal rights for all (Brown v. Board of education anyone?), brought about universal schooling, decreased poverty through welfare and other programs, decreased the infant mortality rate, and, in many countries, provided citizens of all stripes with health care. \u201cStatism\u201d has not failed (and I don\u2019t think it\u2019s fair to give it an \u201cism\u201d anyway). If they\u2019re referring to communism when they say it was a \u201charsh taskmaster,\u201d I would point out that the Soviet Union suffered from totalitarianism more than anything else, and no one ever thought totalitarianism was a good idea.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nMy view of statism is a bit different.\u00a0 Government was built up as the epitome of evil while I was growing up.\u00a0 I distrusted anyone in a black suit that drove a black SUV and had a white, translucent earpiece.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nAs an example, a few years back, my wife and I ran a daycare and saw firsthand what our American welfare system has done to the livelihood and the work ethic of the poorest in our society.\u00a0 It has elevated their livelihood quite well.\u00a0 To starve in America today is a rarity, and yet still happens.\u00a0 But it hasn\u2019t pulled people who depend on welfare out of the doldrums and propped them back on their feet to be successful, independent of the state.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nSure, everyone can use government for that purpose and I have taken advantage of it myself.\u00a0 But I find fault in the nature of our welfare system as being too easy to take advantage of, losing sight of its true initial purpose \u2013 to be a fallback for the poor.
\n<\/span><\/div>\nOn the other hand, I am convinced that much of Christianity has failed mankind.\u00a0 They have lost sight of the purpose of the religion which is to show others love.\u00a0 Love by doing service is a great way to start.\u00a0 Instead, we are wrapped up in our theological differences and care only for the minds of those we agree with, rather than the lives of all.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span>
\nFinally, mankind has found a new \u201cgod,\u201d and that \u201cgod\u201d is the earth? This makes no sense whatsoever. \u201cGod\u201d is a supernatural concept; the earth is the physical place we live on. There\u2019s a difference there. Mankind did realize at some point that the earth was something that we could destroy, and indeed were in the process of destroying, and that this was a bad idea. Seriously, we had rivers that had so much trash in them that when lit on fire they burned for days. Smog so thick you couldn\u2019t see ten feet in front of you? Environmentalism is about protecting the earth so that we can live healthy lives and so that our civilization can survive, not about \u201cworshiping\u201d it or making it into a \u201cgod.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nSome people\u00a0do<\/em> worship the earth, though they have been doing it for thousands of years.\u00a0 Tribal types. <\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>
\n21st-century men are earth worshipers. They are sanitized pantheists. Of course, they don\u2019t call themselves pantheists or earth worshipers, but religious devotion to the material world is the essence of this modern faith.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>
\nThis religious devotion to the material world as god comes in many shapes and sizes, but it has become ubiquitous in our culture. The new pantheism is at the heart of the green movement. It is reflected in the priorities of Hollywood, in the agenda of politicians, and in the curriculum of the government schools. It is found in the marketing campaign of Madison Avenue, in the reality TV shows of cable television, and sadly, even in pulpits across the nation. The worship of the creation has become a defining undercurrent in our culture, even as it is reshaping many of the cultures of the modern world.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nThese two paragraphs don\u2019t make a lick of sense. Since Phillips simply makes assertions without examples or proof, there is nothing to refute here. Except to say that what they\u2019re saying is NOT true. First, \u201cearth worshipers\u201d? Really? Not sure where he\u2019s even getting that. Secondly, environmentalism is not at all universal to our culture, and even if it was, it\u2019s not about worshiping anything, it\u2019s about protecting our environment so that we can have healthy lives today and a good future tomorrow. Also, materialism is totally different from and unrelated to environmentalism. Also, didn\u2019t Phillips earlier say that man either worships the Creator or the creature? If that\u2019s so, how is man suddenly worshiping the earth? Phillips is contradicting even himself.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span>
\nAnd this is one reason why this Friday, April 22, millions of people (perhaps billions) representing the countries of the United Nations will stop to celebrate the high holy day of this religion as they pay homage to the earth God. Of Earth Day, evolutionary anthropologist Margaret Meade once explained that:<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nEARTH DAY is the first holy day which transcends all national borders, yet preserves all geographical integrities, spans mountains and oceans and time belts, and yet brings people all over the world into one resonating accord, is devoted to the preservation of the harmony in nature and yet draws upon the triumphs of technology, the measurement of time, and instantaneous communication through space. EARTH DAY draws on astronomical phenomena in a new way \u2014 which is also the most ancient way \u2014 by using the vernal Equinox, the time when the Sun crosses the equator making the length of night and day equal in all parts of the earth. To this point in the annual calendar, EARTH DAY attaches no local or divisive set of symbols, no statement of the truth or superiority of one way of life over another.<\/em><\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span>
\nNice quote mining. I do agree that one thing that is cool about earth day is that it unites everybody. Most holidays are specific to a religion or a location or a nation. Earth day is about the universals that bind us all \u2013 such as the earth that we live on. And I think we can all agree that the earth, which provides us with food and warmth and everything else, is something that we need to protect. Or at least I thought so until I read this article.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span>
\nShould Christians care about the earth? Not only must we care about it, we have a holy duty to engage the earth. The difference between the objectives of biblical Christianity and radical environmentalism can be found in the religious assumptions of both groups.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nDougy is a huge Dominionist in the sense that we need to \u201csubdue\u201d the earth. To him, that means that we can do whatever we want because we were given that permission by God himself.\u00a0 He\u2019ll give a head fake to the idea that we need to be careful with the earth, but its more about a PR campaign so he doesn\u2019t get accused of what he REALLY believes.\u00a0 Watch some of his stuff sometime.\u00a0 The guy would dune buggy on the last anthill on earth if he was given the chance (yeah\u2026I just used \u201cdune buggy\u201d as a verb).<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>
\nFour Lies of the Radical Environmentalist Movement<\/strong><\/span><\/div>\nWith Earth Day comes billions of dollars worth of environmentalist propaganda driven by their religious worldview. Some of the themes you can expect to hear repeated this year include the following:<\/span><\/div>\n1.<\/span>The Earth Is Our Mother:<\/em> The very expression \u201cMother Earth\u201d is popular parlance in our culture and reflects the old pagan longing to worship the physical world. Modern environmentalists, with their devotion to the idea that man is just another life-form to spring from the womb of the earth on the evolutionary journey of life, speak openly about earth being the mother of man.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nI do not think it means what you think it means. \u201cThe earth is our mother\u201d is something that is said figuratively. It means that we cannot live without the earth, that we cannot survive without the earth, that we cannot flourish without the earth, and therefore, we should protect the earth.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nI second that!<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\n2.<\/span>Human Life Has No Greater Intrinsic Value Than Animal Life:<\/em> The notion that man is an insignificant blip in the universe and that our planet is almost as insignificant as man is an oft-repeated concept of the modern environmentalist movement. Radical environmentalists complain about the carbon footprints of humans, and the sin of \u201cSpeciesism\u201d \u2014 man discriminating against lower life-forms.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nThis is true. Mankind is an insignificant blip. Heck, we\u2019ve been on earth what, a couple million years? And of that written human history only goes back six or eight thousand years. To put that in perspective, dinosaurs were on the earth for a hundred and fifty million years. As for the supposed \u201csin\u201d of speciesism, this argument is simply made by animal rights activists, not environmentalists as a whole, and it is in essence no more than an argument that \u201cowning\u201d animals, who are sentient beings just as we are, is akin to slavery.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\n3.<\/span>The Greatest Crisis Facing Humans is the Despoiling of the Earth:<\/em> From the media campaigns of former Vice President Al Gore, to the film agenda of\u00a0Avatar<\/em>, radical environmentalists want you to believe that the single greatest problem facing humanity is the environmental destruction of earth.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nThis is also true. We are destroying our environment. We cannot live without our environment. If this continues, famine and disease will spread, natural disasters will increase, and wars over resources will proliferate. Not good.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nI disagree with Libby Anne here, but my disagreement is only reflective of the debate about anthropogenic global warming\/climate change (AGW) in society as a whole.\u00a0 I see our world as cleaner today than it was 30 \u2013 40 years ago and yet there is room for improvement.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\n4.<\/span>Absent a Radical Shift in Private Practice and Public Policy, the Environmental Crisis Will Lead to the End of Life on Earth:<\/em> Modern pantheists care deeply about the future. One thing is clear: Radical environmentalists have their own eschatology. They see the end of the world coming because of nuclear waste, global warming, the loss of rainforest in the Amazon, or any of a host of perceived environmental hazards.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nThis is slightly drastic, but it is in some sense true. Mankind really could go extinct. It happened to the dinosaurs. \u00a0However, I don\u2019t think that will actually happen, and I don\u2019t think most environmentalists think it will either. I think it more likely that we will see a lot of death and huge changes in the civilizations of the world, which will then stabilize with very different standards of living and way of life.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nDoug makes a grave error here and one that is quite offensive.\u00a0 He tries to portray that all love for the earth is a reaction based on the calamitous possibilities of what man can do.\u00a0 I see what man can do as I drive down the highway.\u00a0 I don\u2019t want to jump into the Mississippi and accidentally swallow the water.\u00a0 I see washing machines in creeks and bicycle tires in lakes and ponds.\u00a0 I love the earth and desire for it to be clean.\u00a0\u00a0 And I will gladly be lumped in with those who don\u2019t want the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nAs it seems, Dougy Boy wants the rainforest obliterated.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>
\nFour Christian Assumptions About the Earth<\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n1.<\/span>The Earth is Witness to the Power and Authority of God the Creator Who Alone May Be Worshipped:<\/em> The Bible teaches that the very existence of the earth is a reminder to all men of the eternal power and Godhood of Christ, so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20). It reminds us that as long as the earth continues, the promises of God will remain faithful (Genesis 8:22; Deuteronomy 7:9). Significantly, the Bible warns us that the consequence for man rejecting the witness of creation is that he worships creation itself (Romans 1:22-25).<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nAs an atheist, I totally disagree with this one. I see the earth as evidence of our past and of evolution. In fact, I find nothing about the earth that points to God. \u201cThe witness of creation?\u201d Nope, sorry, actually I look at the earth and find it pointing me in the opposite direction.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nAs a Christian, I agree.\u00a0 Staring at the stars, I get a true sense of God\u2019s handiwork. But I don\u2019t see that as an argument against taking care of the earth or even celebrating it.\u00a0 And I really think Dougy is stretching a bit with the Romans 1:22 \u2013 25 reference.\u00a0 The author is talking about images that are different from the true God.\u00a0 Those images happen to be an animal or creeping thing.\u00a0 Nothing to do with worshiping the creation as he purports.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\n2.<\/span>The Earth Was Made for the Glory of God and the Benefit of Man Who Was Made the Pinnacle of Creation and of Infinitely Greater Value than Animals or the Earth Itself:<\/em> Man is the pinnacle of creation and has more eternal value than the earth or any of the creatures who live on it (Psalm 8:5). Man is not a carbon footprint; he is the image-bearer of God. This means that the most \u201cinsignificant\u201d human life (insignificant only in the eyes of man) is of inestimably greater value than that of a blue whale, a snail darter, a spotted owl, a mountain, or a tree.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nI don\u2019t think this is true either. Mankind is not a \u201cpinnacle\u201d of anything. Mankind evolved just like the animals. We happen to have evolved a lot of higher brain function, but that is the only thing that makes us different. Now because I am human, I value human life more than that of animals; similarly, I think that if I were a fox I would probably value fox life over that of other animals.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nI don\u2019t get it.\u00a0 What is Doug arguing here?\u00a0 I agree about the status of man but I don\u2019t see how that means we cannot try our darndest to take care of God\u2019s creation.\u00a0 Sure, a blue whale wasn\u2019t fashioned in the image of God, but who cares?\u00a0 Should we kill the last one and burn the fat in our lamps?<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\n3.<\/span>The Earth Has Been Placed under Man who Has a Moral Obligation to Subdue it and to Exercise Wise Stewardship over the Earth:<\/em> Man is God\u2019s appointed steward on earth, and his core mission is to be His agent of dominion over it. Toward this end, God has placed all things under man to be used for his benefit and to be carefully stewarded and cultivated for God\u2019s glory. \u201cThou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet\u201d (Psalm 8:6).<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nAgain, no. We were never \u201cgiven\u201d the earth by a \u201cgod.\u201d However, the stewardship idea does make sense \u2013 we need to protect and care for the earth, not destroy it. So far, man has proved to be a terrible steward of the earth!<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nWhat the\u2026?!!\u00a0 Are you serious?\u00a0 Ok.\u00a0 Not surprised.\u00a0 And here, Doug\u2019s Dominionist crap rears its ugly head.\u00a0 He says environmentalists worship the earth.\u00a0 I imagined he would argue the opposite for Christians and say that we need to worship God and bring others to Christ, but no, he claims that our \u201ccore mission\u201d is to be God\u2019s agent of dominion over the earth?\u00a0 And he pulls that stupid little sing-songy Psalms verse to prove it?\u00a0 Foolishness.\u00a0 Child\u2019s play.\u00a0 Let\u2019s just hope that Dougy isn\u2019t a quiverful type, believing in spiritual dominion too\u2026er\u2026oops\u2026doh!<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\n4.<\/span>The Earth is Not the Problem:<\/em> The reason why the earth suffers is because of man\u2019s sin that has plunged the earth into judgment. Man brought death and judgment to earth. In fact, the whole creation is groaning and waiting redemption (Romans 8:22-23). Despite the righteous judgment of God on earth, He is merciful and promises the continuation of the seasons and the fundamental stability of the planet until the end of time (Genesis 8:22), at which there will be a new heaven and new earth (2 Peter 3:13).<\/span><\/div>\n
\n<\/span><\/div>\nUm, right. Man\u2019s sin released the carbon dioxide into the air and chemicals into the water and chopped down huge rain forests resulting in land erosion. Oh wait. That wasn\u2019t man\u2019s sin, that was\u00a0man. <\/em>Nice try. <\/span><\/div>\nHe\u2019s correct on what the verses say but wrong on the application and even contradicts himself, as well.\u00a0 Doug says the earth is groaning, waiting to be redeemed, wallowing in its demise due to man\u2019s sin, and yet he then says that God will take care of it anyway.\u00a0 Seems to me you can\u2019t have it both ways.\u00a0 But, I may be accused of splitting hairs on that one, so, let me approach it a bit differently.<\/span><\/div>\n