Our Lady of Eternal Denial
David Limbaugh tells us what to believe in:
In spiritually weak moments, I sometimes envy the blind faith of the enviro-zealots, even if the object of their faith is hardly sacred.Precisely! As Jerry Falwell noted, the Prince of Darkness himself is trying to convert Christians into environmentalists:
For all their self-congratulation over their allegiance to science and the scientific method, they flatly violate the spirit of scientific inquiry in their approach to environmental issues.
Of course they cloak all of their claims with the cover of science. They accompany their manifestos with endorsements from hundreds or thousands of scientists, who serve as the functional equivalent of human shields to insulate their extreme claims from scrutiny by the not yet converted.
"If I decide here as the pastor and our deacons decide that we're going to get caught up in the global warming thing, we're not going to be able to reach the masses of souls for Christ, because our attention will be elsewhere, " Falwell said in Sunday's sermon at Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Va. "That's pretty wise for Satan to concoct."Limbaugh has more on satan's conniving consensus:
Never mind that many of the credentialed signatories are anything but experts on climate science. They are scientists, and they buy into the dogma. End of discussion.Hear hear! Never mind that the title of the document is called "Summary
Never mind that the reports said to be the final word on these subjects are sometimes crafted by results-oriented, ideologically intoxicated bureaucrats and published before the signatories have had the opportunity to read them.
While I can't go so far as to say that the deacons of this church are primarily driven by a desire to destroy capitalism and its glorious civilization-advancing fruits, I will say that they seem unconcerned that their demands would have that effect. They pretend to aspire to carbon neutrality, but the only thing they'll end up neutralizing is human progress.Galileo for one, would wholeheartedly agree I'm sure. As would others. But what if a Christian's reason and thought leads him astray from the doctrine of eternal denial? [From the National Association of Evangelicals letter in the link]:
Though these types routinely denigrate Christians as unthinking robots whose faith is based on a disgraceful form of human weakness, at least our God encourages us not to abandon our reason or ignore doubts we might have. ...
Our faith is not so fragile as to be threatened, but instead is strengthened by intellectual doubts and an examination of the evidence. We are never told that we cannot question its precepts because our church fathers arrived at a consensus on doctrine and memorialized it in various creeds.
Although we, the undersigned, are not members of the National Association of Evangelicals, our organizations interface with it regularly and consider it to be an important Christian institution in today’s culture. From that perspective, we are writing the Board of Directors to call attention to what we perceive as a threat to the unity and integrity of the Association. The issue that is dividing and demoralizing the NAE and its leaders is related to global warming, resulting from a relentless campaign orchestrated by a single individual in the Washington office, Richard Cizik, vice president of government relations. While many of us consider Richard to be a friend, he regularly speaks without authorization for the entire organization and puts forward his own political opinions as scientific fact. ...Demonization? Not here!
More importantly, we have observed that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children. In their place has come a preoccupation with climate concerns that extend beyond the NAE’s mandate and its own statement of purpose.
Finally, Cizik’s disturbing views seem to be contributing to growing confusion about the very term, “evangelical.” As a recent USA Today article notes: “Evangelical was the label of choice of Christians with conservative views on politics, economics and biblical morality. Now the word may be losing its moorings, sliding toward the same linguistic demise that “fundamentalist” met decades ago because it has been misunderstood, misappropriated and maligned.” We believe some of that misunderstanding about evangelicalism and its “conservative views on politics, economics and biblical morality” can be laid at Richard Cizik’s door. ...So much for the careful examination of evidence.
We implore the NAE board to ensure that Mr. Cizik faithfully represents the policies and commitments of the organization, including its defense of traditional values. If he cannot be trusted to articulate the views of American evangelicals on environmental issues, then we respectfully suggest that he be encouraged to resign his position with the NAE.


<< Home