What makes ecology so popular in the modern world? It seems to be turning into a type of religion, thrust forward by the notion that it was God himself who has given mankind the mandate to take care of nature. It has become a secular ideology with respect for earth as the key idea. In itself, this is not bad.  However, it is fast changing into a movement where this respect for nature eventually turns out into becoming an unconditional submission to “Mother Earth’, earth itself becoming the object of spiritual worship, leaving little room for man. Some ecologists, like those connected to certain rebellion- and climate activist groups, do not even have a place for all humankind in the world. They have set a limit on the number of people populating earth, e.g. see here Georgia Guidestones – Wikipedia  like only 0.5 Billion. Some even hope for a big world war that would wipe out the current world population, or a great part of it. Is it not a sign on the wall that the gases on which life itself has been built, are now being vilified? All people connected with the production of fossil fuels are now being treated as ‘evil’. Does this not sound very similar to the lies that Hitler proclaimed in the 1930’s? If you do some investigation, you will find that the origin of the Nazi laws to keep the Aryan race ‘pure’ were ‘scientifically’ motivated by some universities. In the end, it just turned out to be the devil’s plan to murder God’s people. Note what Prof. John Christie said about carbon dioxide (CO2) and how electricity from fossil fuels could change the life of many Africans. A blast from the past | Bread on the water

‘In simple terms, CO₂ is the lifeblood of the planet. The vegetation we see around us would disappear, if not for atmospheric CO₂. This green world largely evolved during a period when the atmospheric CO₂ concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO₂. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO₂ does not pose a toxic risk to the planet. In other words, carbon dioxide means life itself. CO₂. is not a pollutant.’……..

…….I often mention that early in my career, I served as a missionary in Africa. I lived upcoun­try with people who did not have access to useful energy. Put simply, access to energy means life, it means a longer and better life. I watched as women walked in the early morning to the forest edge, often several miles away, to chop wet green wood for fuel. They became beasts of burden as they carried the wood on their backs on the return trip home. Wood and dung are terrible sources of energy, with low useful output, while creating high pollution levels. Burning wood and dung inside the homes for cooking and heat created a dan­gerously polluted indoor atmosphere for the family. I always thought that if each home could be fitted with an electric light bulb, and a microwave oven electrified by a gas fired power plant, several good things would happen. The women would be freed to work on other more productive pursuits, the indoor air would be much cleaner so health would improve, food could be prepared more safely, there would be light for reading and ad­vancement, information through television or radio would be received, and the forest with its beautiful ecosystem could be saved. Access to inexpensive, efficient energy would en­hance the lives of the Africans, while at the same time enhancing the environment. 

Most green parties and movements apparently also reject the Big Bang theory. This shows that the problem is deeper and goes back to the origin of life. Discovered by the Belgian priest George Lemaître, it was first rejected by the communists, because it would put a bomb under materialism, which assumes that matter remains forever. According to Stalin , it was a “fairy tale,” spawned by “impostor-scientists” with a religious agenda. No wonder, then, that several Russian physicists were persecuted, tortured and sometimes even murdered by the communist regime ( Matvey Petrovich Bronstein , for example).

Stalin was certainly not the only one who thought that the Big Bang contradicted atheism. When the well-known English Astronomer Fred Hoyle first uttered the word ” Big Bang ” it was to ridicule the theory, seeing it as an attempt to smuggle a “creator” into science. You still see that many scientists have a hard time with it.

To make matters worse for the green movement, today many scientists not only talk about the Big Bang, the beginning of the universe, but also about the Big Crunch: the end of the universe. Previously it was thought that the universe existed eternally and so, matter, because it always existed and always will exist, needed no explanation. Not so, the fact is: matter and energy must have been created at a specific moment, together with time and space, and will perish again. That makes the Earth a speck in our solar system, our solar system a speck in our galaxy, our galaxy a speck in our universe. A speck that hasn’t been around very long in astronomical terms and won’t be around for very long. And on that very temporary place of dirt comes, even smaller, even more temporary, and even dirtier: mankind. Whoever does not have a spiritual answer to that, and who thinks about it deeply, becomes depressed. No wonder that greens like Greta Thunberg also suffer from this.

This endless despair continues: if there is no God, on what should morality be rooted? Atheistic thinkers have formulated various solutions for this. According to them, morality is an invention of man, and therefore not absolute. But who among these relativists really dares to continue this line of thought by claiming that the Holocaust was not a pitch-black page of history? Watch out, there are people who do claim that the holocaust never happened.

Christian spirituality is both humane and green.

Traditional Christianity doesn’t really have all those problems. The Big Bang is in the bible. God is Light. Jesus is the Light of the world. And even though man is esteemed higher and more important than plants and animals, nevertheless he is given the responsibility for all of creation. It was indeed not the intention that he simply can do with creation as he wants, But our love for creation is subject to our love for God and humankind. 

Despite the apparent insignificance of man, he is nevertheless linked to something great and eternal. The sources of modern despair are all short-circuited here. It may be said that many Christians who no longer share the traditional Christian viewpoints make themselves vulnerable to modern despair about the purpose of life.

In short, the Christian culture gave us a world view that provided solid ground: although man is limited, he is at the service of the absolute and thus eternal. This gives way to a deep and loving humanism.

Instead, the green religion brings us loose ground: people see themselves as limited but must submit to Mother Earth. Due to the despair of humanity being so temporary, they cling to the Earth – which is only slightly less temporary, if you think about it. And morality itself, in their feasible program, is being subjected to human whims. Or rather, to the whims of ecologists. With all the consequences that this entails if we do not oppose them.