Christopher Monckton of Brenchley sends this article by Grant Goldman, a popular radio host in Sydney, Australia.
In July 1937 when the Marco Polo Bridge incident launched Japan’s aggression against China, that was not important enough for Australian religious leaders to write to the government demanding strong action against Japan.
In March 1939 the German occupation of Czechoslovakia was not important enough for Australian religious leaders to write to the government demanding strong action against the Nazis.
In November 1956 Soviet troops overrunning Hungary was not important enough for Australian religious leaders to write to the government demanding strong action against the USSR.
In October 2013 the massacre of Syriac Orthodox Christians and destruction of 14 churches in Sadad in Syria was not important enough for Australian religious leaders to write to the government demanding strong action against the Jihadis responsible.
The likelihood that there are more slaves in the world today than at any previous time in human history is not important enough for Australian religious leaders to write to the government demanding strong action against the slave trade.
Three terrible genocides were perpetrated in the twentieth century. By the Turks against Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Christians in 1915, by the Soviets against the Ukrainians in 1932-1933, and of course by the Nazis against the Jews from 1939 to 1945.
None of these horrible events prompted Australian religious leaders to act with one voice.
Why am I telling you all this?
What is important enough for Australian religious leaders purporting to represent Anglicans, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews, to get together and write to the Government and the Opposition demanding action?
Well, a person named Thea Ormerod, representing a numerically insignificant outfit called Australian Religious Response to Climate Change, drafted a letter for them all to sign, calling for a 40% cut in the level of carbon dioxide emissions compared with 1990 levels by the year 2025, and an 80% cut by 2030.
We are talking here about the comprehensive economic destruction of Australia, with mass unemployment, grinding poverty, widespread hunger and disease, shocking child mortality and truncated lifespans for everybody who is not amongst the elite.
Thea Ormerod is likely related to Neil Ormerod, who is Professor of Theology at the Australian Catholic University. Oh yes, this is the educational institution which a month ago awarded two scholarships, each for full tuition fees for four years, to honour executed drug smugglers Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.
This leads me to observe that the worthy goal of getting Australia to lead a worldwide campaign to abolish capital punishment is not important enough for Australian religious leaders to write to the government demanding strong action. But strong action against carbon dioxide is what they want.
The Church of England has been pushing the anti-energy barrow for some time. They actually ran a Global Divestment Day on February 14 this year. It attracted little attention because St Valentine’s Day is the day when most people are busy chatting each other up and eating chocolate.
What issues do you want your Church to concentrate on? World peace? Ending poverty? Defeating disease? Combatting crime? Protecting minorities? Saving children from sexual abuse? Helping the homeless? Maybe, just maybe, even campaigning against sin?
What about preaching forgiveness? That is what churches used to do. Or do you want your church to act like basically a subsidiary of the Greens?
It’s your Church, and it’s your money that pays the bills. If the Churches do forget that, then people will get baptised, married and buried online. It’s cheaper.
The Church of England is part of a push to reduce Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions compared with 1990 levels by the draconian figure of 80% in the next fifteen years, which would make Australia unable to feed, house and clothe Australians.
In Britain, North America and Australia the Church of England has declared war on coal, through a combination of divestment programs and propaganda from the pulpit.
Time for some facts about coal. The gerontologist and evolutionary biologist Caleb Finch tells us that since the early 1800s life expectancy in Europe has doubled. The single greatest factor in the longevity revolution has been coal.
Beginning in the eighteenth century and accelerating into the nineteenth century, coal made possible stunning increases in productivity. Coal saved from destruction the forests of Britain which by the mid eighteenth century were rapidly disappearing.
Coal dramatically reduced pollution caused by cooking and heating with wood and animal dung. Coal permitted large scale smelting of metals. Coal made possible modern medical science and modern agriculture. Coal opened the way to commerce and freedom of movement on a scale never before imagined.
Thanks to coal, for the very first time ordinary workers who were not members of the aristocracy nor of the clergy had leisure time. Life was still tough, but thanks to coal life rapidly improved.
Instead of being permanently enslaved to tasks like collecting wood to heat and to cook, women had the opportunity to learn to read and become educated or musical or artistic or political or charitable as they wished.
Coal made possible the growth of democratic institutions and, vitally important, the abolition of slavery. Nineteenth-century Britain saw the flowering of culture with bands, orchestras, choirs, drama societies, literary societies, trade unions, and, of course, the flowering of the Church of England.
I’ll mention some of the great hymnists of the late eighteenth century and the nineteenth century. In chronological order (top left to bottom right): John Wesley (1703-1791); Edward Perronet (1726-1792); William Cowper (1731-1800); John Newton (1725-1807); Reginald Heiber (1783-1826); Joseph M. Scriven (1819-1886); Matthew Bridges (1800-1894); Carl Gustav Boberg (1859-1940).
Thanks to coal, hymn books could be printed cheaply and thanks to coal there were trees left in the land to make the paper.
In Britain, by 1860 around 400,000 coal industry workers were each producing around 175 tonnes of coal in a year for an annual total of seventy million tonnes of coal. In 1913 around 1,100,000 coal industry workers were each producing around 264 tonnes of coal in a year for a total of 290 million tonnes.
This great increase in coal production coincided with wonderful progress in every aspect of society. People lived longer, ate better and their purchasing power increased year by year.
As the twentieth century dawned, coal was already popularising the wonderful blessing of electricity. The former major disadvantage of coal-fired power – sulphur dioxide emissions – was overcome with fluidised bed combustion using limestone, and coal has continued as the world mainstay of electrical power.
Tragically, 1.3 billion people – eighteen percent of the world’s population – have no access to electricity and so are deprived of all the wonderful things we take for granted. Expansion of coal production is vital as part of the energy mix necessary to offer the poor and disadvantaged of the world an escape route from poverty, misery and short lifespans.
By declaring war on coal, people who purport to represent the Church of England are committing a terrible crime against the world’s poorest people.
My suggestion to the people purporting to lead the Church of England is re-read the Parable of the Talents. It’s still there in Matthew Chapter 25, verses 14-30.
The Parable of the Talents (etching): Lucas van Doetechum (floruit 1554-1572)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The titular word “Bleating” is absolutely perfect for this posting, with ALL of its implications!!!
There really is only one thing that can be done, Business as usual for the rest of the world, while allowing for Australia to totally decarbonize and prove that it can be done without causing the associated widespread poverty disease, and death that has been repeatedly predicted by so many
Sorry Ozzies but you get to be the Lab Rats
Hey, we’ve got Abbott… 🙂
Australia could suck every molecule of CO2 on the continent and put it in a bottle and the world would neither know or care. Nothing against OZ (I’ve chosen to live there) but 25 million people out on the corner of the world just don’t matter to the rest of the population who’s main concern is eating and getting laid.
Australia is one continent that is definitely a net carbon source. Well the place is so flat, that the winds go whistling right across it, without hitting anything important; except may be the sails of the Sydney opera house.
So with the water vapor carried all the way across and back out to sea, nothing green grows there now; so how did they get all that coal to burn ?
Well despite being an overall carbon source, Australia still doesn’t amount to a hill of beans in the CO2 effluation listings. There’s not that many people there, so on a per head basis, the Aussies are NOT the bad guys.
And they do have more coal than Newcastle does, so they should burn it, and sell it to others.
The USA is the only land based net carbon sink of any size (The Shaky Isles is another but much smaller one)
In both cases, the intensive agriculture including forest farming is a big contributor, and both countries are good at that and have suitable climates.
So the big island to the North-West is not the problem. And if I was their PM, I would be telling the UN to “shove it.”
Just my opinion of course.
Eric,
And two Bishop’s
We could then allow the UK to be Test Case part 2 (lab mice). If Ozzies fail to decarbonize into a healthy state, perhaps the Brits could prove it out on a smaller scale.
Lets face it, If the Brits can’t make it work without killing off half their populace, then It can’t be done.
No Abbott is the star he actually has his sights set on this madness.
Let all the religions congregate in one party so we can identify where they are, perfect.
I think the UK is yet to turn the corner and are well eligible for the lab rat roll. More representative economy.
It does not kill off half the population. It only kills off more than all accidents and murders combined so its not that bad really. And after all remember that those killed are only the old or weak so its not all bad as it saves NHS costs. Lets not be guilty of exaggeration.
David Cage overlooks what happens when people are under threat. They panic and so if they see some (or lots) of their peers starting to die of cold and starvation will start killing a few themselves to create a better chance of ultimate survival. One great truth, however, is that the elite who assume they would be among the survivors would be among the first to starve as they are the least capable to actually work and none of them are farmers. In fact the elite despise the lower classes, the workers and producers, even though they are totally reliant on their labour.
tomwys1,
Well there is one religious group that doesn’t bleat about climate change and doesn’t believe its flashy media campaign or a flashy president:
PS – And whilst the above video may be a spoof – it’s still not half as funny as the the attempts to fool the rest of us into believing climate change propaganda.
When he talks of Global Warming being a threat to national security, Obama is confusing it with Global Warring. Somebody should tell him that’s another of his files.
tomwys1,
I would add that this is the titular quote of the posting. The ultimate goal of the green movement seems clear.
Someone must be putting more than a few more than coins into the collection plate.
Probably Putin’s FSB
Stunning integration of many different strands I’ve never seen before in one article. Love the list of “great hymnists of the late eighteenth century and the nineteenth century”. Halleluyah! Very well done Grant Goldman – and to Christopher Monckton for spotting. This should make anyone of good conscience in today’s churches sit up.
Ditto that.
@ur momisugly Richard Drake, ‘This should make anyone of good conscience in today’s churches sit up”
Sorry and a big NO , they should stand up and leave..
One of the main reasons I left “The Church” many (48) years ago. The hypocrisy even today as it was then is still mind boggling.
asybot: It’s one valid reaction. As a teenager I heard a preacher called David Watson liken our experience of church to finding an old jewel case in the attic, opening it and finding it empty. Three options: 1) throw it away as useless. 2) keep on mantelpiece, as it’s not too ugly really. 3) search for the precious jewel that must once have been there.
Christ is the only one that makes sense of so much silliness. But it’s a dangerous quest!
Agreed. In fact, that’s likely one of the only ways to combat this nonsense.
Start a countermovement/alternative church in Aussie for churchgoers that says “If you want your church to solve real issues and do something that actually has an impact on people’s lives, helps the poor, etc., then quit and join THIS church.
The only way to have an impact would be for tons of churchgoers to quit and move. Only then would the church get any kind of message, and even that is unlikely.
The fact is that 70% or more Australians consider themselves to be Christians. Very few go to church. Australians are still generous donors to help the needy and the sick, they send increasing numbers of children to religious schools and they will volunteer when the need arises but they don’t go to church. Those religious leaders who signed the letter are leading smaller and smaller flocks toward a poisoned waterhole and people are getting off the bus in droves.
The C of E must have shares in renewable energy.
Coal dramatically reduced pollution caused by cooking and heating with wood and animal dung.
The smogs caused by coal combustion greatly increased the death rate due to respiratory disease, in the ‘Great London Smog’ of 1952 when there were ~900 deaths/day due to the smog.
And the smog wasn’t caused or exacerbated by CO2.
Most of that was from domestic hearths, not power stations. Coal can be burned much more cleanly in modern power stations, with exhaust gases scrubbed.
If we deny this possibility to developing countries as a stepping stone to a better life, then that in my opinion would be a crime against humanity.
The modern “Disneyfied” Church of England, is indeed run by the most appalling misanthropes.
PS
I work in the nuclear power construction industry so have no fossil fuel baggage or “Big Oil” back-handers.
More fool you. The rest of us are swimming in the stuff 🙂
in the ‘Great London Smog’ of 1952 when there were ~900 deaths/day due to the smog.
=============================
cars kill more than 3000 people a day worldwide, thus we should also ban cars.
HEADLINE: The UN is calling for a 40% cut in the number of cars compared with 1990 levels by the year 2025, and an 80% cut by 2030.
We have alternatives to coal, for cars that is not always the case.
?
Alternatives to coal quite often have the same issues as alternatives to cars: more expensive, inadequate, or no advantages. Hydro and geo – often unavailable. Wind and solar – inadequate and more expensive. Nuclear – more expensive and an environmental issue. Natural gas – more expensive if not local and no transport infrastructure. Other fossil fuels – no advantages.
There are huge coal deposits in Nigeria and South Africa. It would be much cheaper to use coal in a large area of Africa than any other alternative.
Chris,
The relevant issue is really the net loss or benefit. Coal allowed millions of people to stay warm, who otherwise would have been cold all winter long, every winter of their short, miserable, freezing lives.
To make any sense the 100s of thousands or millions of lives saved by that coal must be set against the losses. There is no technology, and no ideology, and no laws that is perfect. It is always cost vs benefit.
fred
Who do you suppose will get to keep their cars [20% of the 1990 numbers in 2030]?
our patrician elite, for example?
And a cut from 60% of the 1990 number in 2025 to one third of that number – 20% – just five years later is quite a cut; not circumcision, more below nipple amputation.
Have the Chinese and Indians agreed to this?
Auto, running one car in the family
Phil.
Point of order:
“The smogs caused by coal combustion greatly increased the death rate due to respiratory disease, in the ‘Great London Smog’ of 1952 when there were ~900 deaths/day due to the smog.”
The smog was not caused by the combustion of coal, it was caused by not combusting the coal. The emission of uncombusted materials, largely condensed volatiles from the incomplete combustion of brown coal, is what that smog 'was made of'.
Properly burning that same brown coal (which is high in hydrogen and oxygen) is easily accomplished in a small and appropriately designed combustor. The fact that they banned the fuel instead of using well-known (British) technology available at the time is an accident of history or perhaps the victory of the ignorant who thought that 'smoke' is an inherent property of 'coal'.
About three weeks ago an air quality agency in the most polluted and coldest capital city in the world, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, released a chart showing that there has been a 65% drop in 'smog' in only 3 years achieved directly by the replacement of traditional stoves with modern ones selected specifically for their ability to efficiently burn the local brown coal. The new stoves reduce smoke emissions by 93-99% so obviously the problem in London was not the burning of coal, but rather the not burning of it.
Bravo!
Phil, I lived in London in 1952 and the coal that kept us warm was definitely not brown coal, it was hard, shiny black coal. I doubt that much brown coal was ever sold in the UK for domestic heating. After the Clean Air Act, we used coke, which was great, once it was well alight. And the open fireplaces that were in almost every pre-war house continued to be used to burn the coke, probably until Thatcher closed down the coal mines. Maybe you are Irish and are thinking of peat?
Thatcher didn’t shut the mine the unions did.
@Crispin, +100
And yet that doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t have been worse if they were burning wood and shite. It’s also worth mentioning that the deaths were largely pneumonia or bronchitis *on top of* ‘chronic bronchitis.’ That latter being a longstanding euphemism for pertussis — the whooping cough. I’m not doubting the statistics involved here or the severity of the pollution, but folks with those sorts of ailments will keel over from a brisk walk. That makes it a bit hard for me to get up in arms about; especially when it was only their 4th year embarking on national healthcare.
~900 deaths/day compared to what?
What was the death count from burning wood and dung?
Without that, your 900 number is worthless.
Most likely, the previous number was thousands, or tens of thousands.
@Phil.
Thank you for pointing out the number of deaths caused by coal combustion.
I will only like to add to Phil’s comment that, then as now, these deaths were entirely frivolous. This is crucial. Coal combustion did not and does not serve any purpose whatsoever. The people that then and now burn coal do so for no reason. None. Coal combustion was and is carried out in order to: first, slave us to the rich and, second, kill us all in the process.
Thank you Phil for your contribution. Enlightening stuff.
@brute , growing up in the 50’s we heated our house with coal and cooked with it ( I remember one chore was to go to the coal shed and filling the chute to our house twice a day) your statement is at best BS at worst you are just uninformed.
The main point to me was that since the early 1800’s, life expectancy has doubled, coinciding with the modern era of cheap energy. This allowed even commen men to use energy to do work which had previously been done by hand. This drove the rise in the economic status of the common man from impoverished to middle-class (in those countries that indeeed have cheap abundant energy.)
…….The smogs caused by coal combustion greatly increased the death rate due to respiratory disease, in the ‘Great London Smog’ of 1952 when there were ~900 deaths/day due to the smog…….
Not actually true as if the same heat had been from open wood fires the smog would have been even more frequent and thicker. As a young junior engineer, in the acid rain opposition way back in the sixties I did some measurements on various sources to compare the power station effluent with other forms of heating. A properly equipped power station heating about thirty thousand houses was about the same as around fifty coal fires or forty wood fired homes.
This was after electrostatic precipitators and scrubbers were fitted to the power stations. Even before this the accusations had to be more political than justified as the alternative would have been more open fires.
The Church has always been hypocritical, from its failure to deal with child abuse by its own priests, to owning large and expensive buildings while the people who live nearby are in abject poverty with absolutely no hope of aspiring to better themselves. Without reliable electricity not only will these people continue to suffer, but so will the West who will be unable to provide aid because our economies will crash.
The only glimmer of hope must be that the Church are seen to be as right about CO2 as they have been over other scientific developments including the earth centric universe.
Sorry, typo meant to say:
The only glimmer of hope must be that the Church are seen to be as right about CO2 as they have been over other scientific developments including their belief in an earth centric universe.
Religious leaders should stop warming to global bleating.
Amen!
I would tend to agree with every word. However, I would be more impressed with your sincerity if you did not try to slip Catholic Christianity into your many articles. This is simply the obverse of what these Religious leaders are doing, in trying to hitch religion to newsworthy bandwagon, and simply distracts from the important scientific message you make.
Regards the list of genocides that were not metioned, you forgot the burning of Greek Smyrna by the Turks in 1922, and the genocide and exile of some 1/2 million Greeks. (Which was quite separate to the Armenian genocide, because it was perpetrated by Karmel Ataturk’s new government). This genocide was probably worse than the Armenian Genocide, because the navies of the West sat in Smyrna harbour and watched it happen – and did nothing.
George Horton, the US ambassador, wrote the most harrowing account ever of the annexation of Greek Anatolia in 1922.
http://www.hri.org/docs/Horton/HortonBook.htm
Ralph
I didn’t detect anything narrowly Catholic – though lots deeply Christian – in the article, which, in case you didn’t read the first paragraph carefully, is by WUWT newbie Grant Goldman. It’s very much to Christopher Monckton’s credit that he saw the worth in this piece from Oz. He certainly wasn’t pushing anything partisan in recommending it to Anthony.
It is there if you are looking for it…. But then again, it is every where by that measure.
I didn’t see Pol Pot in the list either.
Nor Rwanda, nor the mass murders of Mao, nor the rape of Nanking. “Three terrible genocides were perpetrated in the twentieth century” and what followed seemed to imply there were only three. And that Stalin’s mass murder was only of Ukrainians, not kulaks generally and many other races too.
Nevertheless, the punch line
is a vital point very well made.
Ralph. There are numerous examples where the Church sat on it’s collective hands while innocents suffered but Grant can hardly mention them all in a short essay. BTW I listen to Grant each morning on my local radio station. He is a good and fair man.
And regards the parable of talents, I don’t see the connection with the import of this article. The moral of Jesus’ parable was (as it says):
For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness.
So what Jesus was saying here, is that the rich should support the banking system and get ever richer through extortionate interest rates. While the poor should have what megre belongings they have taken from them, and be cast out onto the streets as beggars.
So if the modern Church is seeking to make the poor poorer, by making energy more expensive, then they are following what Jesus said. Jesus said that the poor shoul be made destitute and kicked out onto the streets, and that is exactly what the Church is doing.
R
Er, talents mean our talents and using them for the kingdom of God. (Translation of a Greek word for coin that gained Jesus’ meaning in the parable in English over time, after the King James Bible used it.) Once this is understood greedy bankers are not off the hook for their treatment of the poor in 21st century and the reference makes a great ending to the piece.
What have talents (coins) got to do with talents (skills)? You sound like that labour person Brown.
Coins in the parable = talents in real life. The way all parables, like metaphors, work.
In which case: how can you bury a talent? How can you multiply one? How do you increase your talents?
A metaphor has to have some properties in common with the underlying reality. What have coins got to do with skills?
The ‘greedy bankers’? The guy who multiplies the start capital by five gets the praise – surely just a greedy banker?
One servant put a talent on the Lotto – and lost it. Another put one talent on the Lotto and gained 50 million talents.
What do the servants get out of this? We are not told that the geezer who gave back five talents actually made 500 and kept 495 for himself – seems just, somehow.
My point is: what has this garbled rubbish of a parable got to do with energy provision, use of fossil fuels etc.?
In the New Testament, “talent” comes from the Greek “τάλαντον” (talanton), which literally means a balance or scale, from the root “τλαω” (tlao), “to bear”. Thus, a “talent” is a weight of silver or gold. It’s used in the same way as a comparable Hebrew word in the OT.
The Modern English word “talent”, ie an ability, skill or gift, comes from the Greek via Latin, but already existed in Old and Middle English as “talente”.
That the English word is derived from the Latin plural suggests to me that its origin is in the parable. Latin took over “talanton” from Greek as “talentum”, the plural of which is “talenta”, used by Jerome in the Vulgate Bible.
Ralph, the connection to me is in the fear of the future the third servant showed. if you’ll read the version here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:14-30
it is quoted from the NIV and refers to bags of gold coins. the incompetent third servant said:
This I believe refers to the precautionary principle and divestment from provident resources prematurely, thereby depriving your fellow children of God basic needs of life.
I see the first servant as exemplifying the choice of using all that has been provided in the planet to bring the third world up to industrial affluence, thereby reaping the profits of shrinking global population while adding talented individuals to the pool of those who make discoveries that further enrich mankind. That is the kind of interest that God would want on his investment in the eyes of Jesus.
Earlier, in chapter 6, Jesus states:
I find Eric’s use of this parable meaningful as we apparently share a rather thorough religious education.
Yes, the point about being stymied by fear is what makes it such a great ending.
“stymied by fear” is an excellent choice of words, Richard. It sums up what this whole detour of science and philosophy is about. The crux of the new testament is that God cares for us and provides that we may do so for each other. To focus on temporal things is to lose focus on eternal things, or so religion tells us. I think the proper theological approach would be to trust God, and follow (John 13-34) “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” I don’t see “love the earth first” anywhere in the bible or any commands to hold it’s upkeep in higher priority than that of our fellow “children of God”.
(Sorry, wrote Eric instead of Grant above, and thank you M of B for referring it.)
How can you hold 6:26 and 25:14 in you head at the same time. They cannot both be right! ‘they toil not, neither do they reap’ (from memory). What’s so wonderful about the serf who mutliplies the stake by five?
George, from the perspective of my clergyman ancestors, It all goes together like: “Use your resources wisely but don’t hoard them. Provide for others as He provides for you, with no fear that providence will expire. I however, am “the devil quoting the bible” anytime I interpret it differently than others, I know. That is why scripture makes poor argument for or against scientific theory. My comments on this are not based upon my own beliefs, but are observations of what has been told to me by clergy. I don’t care to convert anyone here as I attempt to give alternate perspective for thought. To me science trumps faith, although I do see some evidence of intelligent design in nature.
In Swedish there is the idiom “som fan läser bibeln”. It literally means “like the devil reads the bible”, and it means deliberately misreading something to make it suit one’s own argument or needs. The parable of the talents has probably never been mangled thus thoroughly: “…what Jesus was saying here, is that the rich should support the banking system and get ever richer through extortionate interest rates.” Wow.
Yes! well said, that man!
In the Luther bible in German it is ‘fünf Zentner Silber’ – no mention of ‘Talente’, As Gard points out, this is just an example of people seeing what they want to in the story.
Would this then be considered the consequence of cherry, or apple, picking?
I’m reminded of a televised panel discussion of Islam, in which a young Muslim woman sought to defend her religion against ridicule of the 72 virgins awaiting martyrs in paradise.
She declared that the virgins existed only as a mistranslation of the word ‘hur’, which means ‘white raisin’.
She neglected to note that the following verses in the Koran alluded to the fine quality of the white raisins’ breasts and their humble demeanour, as they averted their raisiny eyes.
>>Gard
>>The parable of the talents has probably never been mangled thus thoroughly:
It is not myself mangling thee parables, it is the Church that does that. There are three main monetry parables:
Vinyard Workers. Math 20:15
The ‘company boss’ hires workers at different wage rates, and when they complain he says: Its my money and I can do what I want with it.
Wicked Tenants. Math 21:41
A landowner has some wicked tenants who refuse to pay their rent. And the moral of the story is that if the tenant does not pay the rent, they should be killed.
Master wants Interest. Math 25:27.
The boss has a worker who was so dim he did not get interest at a bank. And so the moral is tha the stupid worker should be kicked out onto the streets. In fact, the boss wanted usury, which is idefined as an exorbitant interest rate.
Quite clearly, Jesus was a rich capitalist, to be so interested in rents, interest and wages.
And yes, these are parables, but not in the manner that the Church teaches them. The second parable, for instance, was a bitter complaint about the Roman rule in Judaea. The Romans (the tenants) were living on Jewish (the landlord’s) lands, and they were refusing to pay rent. So the landlord (the Jews) said that if the tenant (Romans) did not pay rent, they should be killled. And this is exactly wat happened in AD 68 at the start of the great Jewish Revolt.
So these were political parables, not social parables. And you can see exactly when this parable was written – in the late AD 60s.
Ralph
Yes. You’re still reading the bible like the devil does. I guess I heard the parable of the talents when I was about seven? Eight? Anyway, I was old enough to get then that the story was not about monetary gain, but that there was this metaphor thing going on.
Basically, reading the Bible with your main motivaton being to describe the Christian religion as some kind of a wacky proto-capitalist rebellion against Romans (I apologize for not really getting what you seem to be pushing) is a bit like looking at temperature proxies only to try to prove that there is some nasty global warming going on. Reading tree rings like the devil reads the Bible, if you will.
>> You’re still reading the bible like the devil does.
I see you are a polytheist. So what religion is this? Mithras? Sabeanism? Atonism?
Ah, I know, you must be talking about the good god Osiris, and his evil brother Set (Setan).
R
I am sorry. I was already made aware that you don’t seem to like metaphorical speech. You seem to insist on homing in on the literal meaning of everything, so I’ll wish you good luck with that. You will probably not, however, have much success in understanding religion that way, but that might not be your ambition anyway.
*Sigh*
The context of the parable goes back to the beginning of chapter 24 and continues to the end of 25. Jesus was asked about the his return. This was just a part of his answering about what happens “then”, not “now”. It’s got nothing to do with endorsing banking or monetary systems. It has more to do with the judgements at the end of the book of Revelation and what leads up to it.
The figure of speech known as a parable is a comparison which uses something from real life to illustrate/communicate something. Generally the comparison is on a single point or to make a single point. “And the moral of the story is…”
A parable is similar to a fable. The difference is that a fable uses something that is not from real life. (Talking foxes, talking grasshoppers, “The Little Red Hen”, Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom, Peter meeting people at the Pearly Gates, etc.)
Just to clarify the meaning of the parable! The talents represent everything God has given us (body, mind, soul, spirit). If we use those gift’s to seek and do God’s will (love God and love our neighbour as ourselves) we will be rewarded with heaven (eternal presence with God, the ultimate reward). The increase of talents to the faithful servants represent’s heavenly increase, not earthly increase. Those who focus on earthly things and ignore God (not using our gift’s to worship and please God) will not get the ultimate reward and actually lose everything (hell).
Direct intervention is not necessarily God’s will for all (individual decisions to act could ultimately be pleasing or displeasing to God) including church leaders, and prayer is not a recognisable response for most.
Jesus was referring to our God given talents and His despising of those who failed to use those talents for the benefit of all. Consider how you would feel if after giving your child a great education and a loving family they decide to be a drug addict and join a commune. You would be rightfully disappointed.
The parable of the talents has never made any sense to me whatsoever.
What has it got to do with coal?
Why is the bible the go-to guide to energy provision in the 21st century?
I thought this contributions to this blog were – as a minimum – supposed to have some basis in FACT. The last thing we need now is religious nuts swarming over it.
I suppose if you read Dawtgtomis clarifications above, you might get a good idea what the author was aiming for by ending off with this parable. The greenies usually wants us to leave resources “in the ground”. We are for some reason not supposed to use our God-given “talents”, and that is a bit like the bad servant in the story. No other literary work has had such a profound influence on Western society as the Bible; it makes great sense to quote it since so many people are familiar with it. I don’t think you have to assume that there’s religious nuttery going as soon as someone quotes the Bible.
Thank you Gard, I think the author was trying to reach the theologians on a level that their philosophical perspective could comprehend, and that parable was the punchline, successful or not with the critical thinkers or literalists out there, not to mention the AGW zealots, who have a religious faith in man’s ability to predict and affect future conditions which blocks out all other consideration when interpreting reality.
He is merely chastising religious groups using their own teachings.
Yes, the author was trying to provoke both groups’ thoughts with that ending, wasn’t he…
Why should a point need interpretation before it makes sense?
Nothing useful can be gained from referring to a book written in riddles.
Look how many differing interpretations we have received about the ‘talents parable’ on this thread alone.
It was for a good reason that the Catholic church _banned_ the Catholic laiety from reading the Bible until the beginning of the 20th century. Protestants had translated and read the bible for 500 years by then. Left to themselves without priestly guidance just look what an amazing range of interpretations they came up with.
I, a non-Christian – and there are a lot of us in the world, discount anything that refers to a biblical text in the furtherance of an argument. Some people look on the Bible as an important source of truth. Others like me think that most of the book is no source of truth at all, whether viewed as real, metaphorical, allegorical, poetical or any other kind of revelation. Referring to this book just gives us ‘others’ a bad feeling: for me this article’s invocation of the Bible sabotaged all its arguments about the connection of coal with economic progress.
NB: This is a climate blog. The point I am trying to make relates to a climate (sort of) article. I am not trying to kick off a religious debate.
Here’s a humorous song I’ll bet few have heard. Ray Wylie Hubbard is known for his skepticism of religion and wit in expression of it.
George Meredith
You say
I strongly agree but – unfortunately – it has proven impossible to stop proselytizing atheists from doing it.
Richard
Religious leaders are clearly attempting to promote the worship of both God and Man(n).
…and also of nature.
Deus Ex Machina.
Only God can save the failed theory of AGW.
From an earlier article on WUWT I recall this from the end of the article.
“The most fanatical greens, in my opinion, have no intention of accepting any form of industrial activity whatsoever. They will not be satisfied, until they have completely dismantled the modern world, and restored the endless toil, disease and brutal misery of the pre-industrial age.”
That inspired me. The following comes from an email I wrote making use of that statement. As you will see I had some fun with it.
“The last sentence reminded me of a conversation Jesse and I had not long ago about what “electrification” has meant to middle American and surprisingly what it has meant to the feminist movement, believe it or not. The last one might have caught you by surprise but I will explain.
When I was just a young lad back in the 50s one of my friends did not have the typical washer and dryer we now take for granted. His mother washed the clothes in the kitchen in an open machine with a wringer. I don’t know whether she had to manually agitate the clothes while they were in the tub being washed but after washing she had to manually run the clothes through the wringer to remove the soap. Then, I am sure the tub had to be drained and refilled with plain water. So she would rinse the clothes and wring them before going outside to hang them. That works in the Spring through Fall. In the winter my guess is that she had a foldable rack where she could place the wet clothes over the central floor vent for the coal fired furnace since she did not have central air conditioning.
Regardless of the season, the clothes had to be ironed after drying. I bet she had an electric iron for that. But let’s take this back in time just a bit more before electrification. I am sure there were irons but I bet they had to be heated over the wood fired stove.
I am sure we can find other such examples of what it was like to run and operate a household before we had the convenience of electric appliances. Think of what it might have been like for a family to get its first electric refrigerator instead of an ice box and the ice delivery man.
If you can’t see where this is headed I will summarize. Running a house and caring for a family was truly a full time job not that many years ago. Women must not thought much about careers in those days. There were simply no opportunities unless you could hire a staff to run the house.
For the feminists out there if you have the opportunity thank an engineer when you meet them for they are, in many ways, responsible for giving you the opportunity to have a career. BTW, if circumstances dictate, you can thank the lawyer too. Trouble is you will have to wait for another email on that one. I am sure given sufficient time for thought I can give you a reason to thank the lawyer.”
Just to add from my own experience. My father died when I was five. She remarried a farmer who lived about a mile outside of town while we lived in the house in town.
When I got home from school when I was about seven I had to walk a mile out to the dairy farm to bring the cows in for milking. Once they were in their stalls it was my job to place belts over the backs of the cows to which the electric milkers would be attached. One day I went past the head of a cow who had just been separated from her calf. She flicked her head and horned me on the chin. I have the scar today. In any case imagine a dairy farm today without electric milkers.
The bottom line is that until we had electrification, motor cars and other benefits of industrialization the lifestyles of the elites and the middle class were far different. They are much closer today thanks to the benefits of coal and technology.
charplum
May 30, 2015 at 8:47 am
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your post really took me back – to the days before electricity on the farm and all the milking was done by hand; irons were heated on the top of the stove; we had an “ice box” cooled by ice we cut ourselves; we had “sock stretchers” to hang our woolen socks on the line so they didn’t shrink; in the winter clothes were still hung on the line and they “freeze dried” (although we had a couple of wooden slated drying stands, one on a pulley that went up over the wood stove for drying wet socks and clothes for quick reuse); I STILL have a wringer washer in the basement (the wringer swung about so you could wring clothes from the washing machine to a rinse tub, then out of the rinse tub to a second rinse or to the laundry basket to take to the clothesline); and I still have the old glass scrubbing board that predated it; I only recently threw out the “wash and rinse” tub that was used on a wheeled folding table for rinsing clothes and before that, for working the wash tub and Saturday baths; I remember the luxury of our first “crank” party line telephone; and the day we got our first refrigerator (that lasted 35+ years) … and many more.
You are so right. We have it unbelievably good now compared to our forebearers.
Our children have no idea (though Grumpa has certainly told them and shown them 😉 )
Thanks for the post.
@charplum, It sure as hell was not that long ago was it? I remember the coal days in the 50’s and the miracle of natural gas in the early 60’s when the Saturday wash went from a coal heated galvanized tub (also used for laundry etc) to an actual shower and hot water came out of a “Geiser” instantly. The warped info that is being fed to these pampered fools is truly amazing they do not know how good they have it with their ipods, internet etc, let alone their food supply, sometimes I wish for them to have a real calamity so they understand how truly dependent we are on each other.
I have appreciated the replies to my original comment. Perhaps, it might be appropriate to bring this to an overall conclusion which I think can be further expanded upon with the help of the readers at this site.
Industrialization and all its benefits have done more to equalize lifestyles, not income, between the classes. Middle income and lower folks can now enjoy much the same lifestyles as the wealthy.
If I could further motivate skeptics I would simply remind them that they are preserving the gains that have been made and keeping in place the opportunity to further equalize lifestyles. That is it isn’t it. It is not income it is lifestyles that need to be protected and enhanced. We have all benefitted from what has happened over the last few centuries.
I have a few more enjoyable items to relate that might be enjoyable.
.
My Mom grew up in western Kentucky. I believe she married my Dad in 1939. They decided to visit my Mom’s family in Kentucky around Christmas when it was cold and snowing. They were all chatting when my Dad finally asked where the bathroom was. My cousin or aunt pointed to the back door. My Dad had to put on his overcoat and galoshes to go outside to the bathroom.
Here is a story that gave me a chuckle.
Tammy Wynette, the country singer, lived in rural Mississippi in a house without running water. She had two young daughters. When she had to go to the well to get water she would place the dresses of her two young daughters under the bedpost so they could not get in trouble while she went to get water.
A few years ago I got into a discussion at work with one of my associates. I had watched the “Grapes of Wrath” the night before and I was remarking about how dreadful those people had it. He shot back that they had a truck. His parents had escaped communism in Europe and they had all their possessions in an oxcart.
Recall that Henry Ford made automotive transportation available to the masses. Besides that benefit think of what our streets would look like if we were still using horses.
One thing I do to irritate my liberal friends is to remind them that Rockefeller saved more whales than Greenpeace.
Poverty is constantly talked about in relative terms. I think we should talk about poverty in absolute terms. The poor in this country have a roof over their heads, indoor plumbing, refrigerators, microwave ovens, flat screen TVs and cell phones. I recall a Trivial Pursuit question from years ago that made an impression on me. What animal kills the most people in Africa? You might think it is lions or something like that. No, it was crocodiles. Maybe the women were going down to the river to wash their clothes. That is poverty in the absolute sense and I think it is the better measure.
Religious leaders should listen instead to the ancients, rather than today’s apocalyptic prophets.
For example, Aristotle (384 to 322 BC) who said:
“Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.”
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/an-alternate-climate-encyclical/
They’re actually listening to the voices in their heads, that’s what’s worrying. But their views are an irrelevance.
I remember reading science fiction when writers had a healthy mix of hope and fear about the future. Now it is only gloom and doom.
Might I suggest the religious leaders along with Obama and his minions move to North Korea and they will have achieved everything they preach.
What albertalad said!
There is a complete disconnect between the productivity that many of us enjoy and the “what” that makes it possible among most of the public. I ask people all the time, “Fine, phase out coal/oil/gas and replace it with what?” I usually get some vague nonsense about solar panels, etc. The scary thing is that not even our national leadership can answer the question with something that evenly vaguely resembles a plan even as the phase-out of coal has begun. And then it dawns on you…there aren’t any grown ups in charge.
I agree, reducing CO2 emissions by 80% in twenty years, thirty years (or whatever) is fantasy but such impossible targets are seriously proposed by seemingly intelligent people.
They seem to have no comprehension of the energy demands of developed countries or how deeply imbedded fossil fuels are.
Being flippant, I blame the generation raised on the Teletubbies.
http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/telletubbies/images/8/87/Vlcsnap-2014-09-20-14h15m39s217.png/revision/latest?cb=20140920121602
The chemists reading this website might be surprised by the lack of reference to the other major benefits from coal – coal tar . This gave rise to the modern field of organic chemistry , the discovery of benzene and the aromatic compounds , dyestuffs and the early synthetic pharmaceuticals amongst other industrial chemicals of benefit to humankind.
Fertilisers are another useful by-product if one is serious about feeding the world.
Carbolic acid and carbolic soap
In reply to Mikewaite, you are quite right to mention the non-fuel benefits of coal. Grant Goldman did touch on the matter with the statement: “Coal made possible modern medical science and modern agriculture.” He delivered a couple of radio editorials which Lord Monckton artistically combined into one article. Radio editorials suffer severe time constraints.
No need to cloak it in religion, just call it what it is, the latest attempt to accumulate wealth by misinformation/guilt/ignorance/or any other means.
It’s in our nature.
But, lets rein it in a bit ???
“We are talking here about the comprehensive economic destruction of Australia, with mass unemployment, grinding poverty, widespread hunger and disease, shocking child mortality and truncated lifespans for everybody who is not amongst the elite.”
And if spread across the world, the same. Starvation for all, including food animals–less CO2, less food for plants and the animals that eat them, effecting reduction of world population. Who could be hoping for that?
“Who could be hoping for that?”
Idiots …
Useful idiots…
“Say, there’s an out-of-control, apparently driverless bandwagon with its wheels falling off. Let’s hop aboard!”
Isn’t Global Divestment Day something to do with naturists ?
When the world’s religious leaders see the U.N. pushing a new CAGW religion with potentially more adherents than any religion ever, and the selling of indulgences (aka carbon credits), of course they want to get in on the game. Don’t call me a ‘denier’, call me a ‘CAGW protestant’.
And when it comes to the life enhancing derivatives of coal, don’t forget that one word son, “plastics!”
Hoyt, and Pharmaceuticals too… them long chain carbons are mighty handy Mrs Robinson.
Reblogged this on Climate Change Sanity and commented:
I am rebloging WUWT posting of Grant Goldman’s “Religious leaders should stop bleating about global warming.” Goldman begins by citing major atrocities that religious leaders did not demand governments have strong responses to the perpetrators but inexplicably demand strong action to prevent “man-made global warming.” Goldman also discusses coal’s benefits to humanity. He also says preventing the world’s poorest people to have access to coal, is a terrible crime.
cbdakota
Re the reference to talents. Luke 19 is a better illustration of what Jesus’s point. Ten servants were intrusted by the master with his assets before he left on a long journey to receive his kingdom. Seven rebelled, one was lazy and two were productive. Because they proved that they were both faithful and productive the were entrusted with leadership when the master returned. It may be prophetic or merely a guilding principle but these verses have less to do with money than charactor. I would put the big E greens in either the nonproductive or rebellious group.
Max
I rather thought the point of using the talents parable was the servant who buried the talents—which is analogous to proponents of leaving coal in the ground or storing CO2 underground (as per CCS).
Sad to say, quite often the religious leaders — be it Christian or Muslim or any other faith — are among the elite. For Christians, this is especially reprehensible. Jesus was a carpenter until he was 30 years old and began his ministry. His disciples all had jobs. Peter was a fisherman. Paul was a tent maker. In fact Paul worked hard so he wouldn’t need money from others. He wrote: “In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.’ We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies.” (2 Thessalonians 3:6-11)
Although Jesus had a very nice garment, he certainly was not elite. The apostles were considered uneducated and ordinary but the Jewish religious leader. The religious leaders were elites, and very wealthy. It is funny how old the love of money is. Before Jerusalem was destroyed by future emperor Titus, the family of the high priest had a very successful business in the temple. Your temple tax had to be paid in a specific currency, and the family of Caiaphas controlled the money changers, at a high markup of course. And the sacrifice had to be just right or the priest would not let you offer your sacrifice. But an animal bought in the temple was always guaranteed to be blessed, at a high markup of course. The family of Caiaphas controlled that too.
Do you see any difference in the religious leaders today? Some, but not all, churches require tithes — even though though Jesus said you receive free, give free. I am a very religious person and it makes me sad to see people using religion to make themselves rich, make themselves part of the elites, and to manipulate people. My God says I should make my own educated decision of my free will. (Exodus 30:19, Acts 17:11) My God says to leave matters up to him to solve and don’t mix religion and politics. (Romans 12:17-21)
To me, these religious leaders are trying to remain relevant and so are getting involved in politics. Maybe if they spent more time studying and asking questions and less time trying to be relevant, rich, and elite they wouldn’t be losing so many members left and right. I am not trying to say all religion leaders are hypocrites; I am saying far too many are.
alexwade
May 30, 2015 at 10:48 am
“Sad to say, quite often the religious leaders — be it Christian or Muslim or any other faith — are among the elite.”
The same mind set as politicians.