Indulging Modern Indulgences

Carbon credits have an interesting partner in history. I see a close link between the growing practice of buying "carbon credits" and the curious practice of buying indulgences as sold by the Roman Catholic church in the early 1500's.

An indulgence, in Roman Catholic theology, is the granting of full or partial pardon of temporal punishment for sins that have already been confessed and forgiven. In layman's terms, the idea is this: you will be punished later for your sins, but you will be punished a little bit less if you are granted an indulgence (my apologies to practicing Catholics if this oversimplifies the matter). Indulgences are typically granted for acts of piety, such as devoting oneself to prayer or reading the scriptures with great reverence.

The granting of indulgences eventually became corrupted and indulgences eventually became commodities that could be bought. Pope Leo X, for example, sought to rebuild St Peter's Basilica by aggressively marketing the granting of indulgences in exchange for alms-giving. This abuse of the doctrine of indulgences soon became one of many contentious issues that led Martin Luther to develop his famed 95 theses.

So, through a corrupted granting of indulgences, people could atone for their sins by fronting a little bit of cash. Carbon credits, as I will demonstrate, encourage people to atone for their environmental sins in the same manner.

Let's look at an example of how carbon credits operate. Average Joe begins shopping for a new vehicle. He's environmentally conscious, and begins looking at the Earth-friendly cars that have the best gas mileage. If he only needed a car to get to work and back, no problem; but he needs something to take all of his kids (and their friends) to soccer practice during the week, and to haul all of the home-improvement supplies (most notably, plywood) for his weekend projects. So, the 1960's space capsule on wheels just doesn't cut it. He needs -- gasp! -- an SUV to do what he needs to do. However, owning an SUV makes Joe feel incredibly guilty. How can he justify owning an SUV when he knows how much damage he would be doing to the environment? Enter the carbon credit.

Carbon credits are presented as a way for Joe to offset his "carbon footprint" (that's the guilt that he feels over the carbon emissions his SUV puts out). When Joe buys carbon credits, his money goes to, let's say, Johnny Appleseed. Johnny now can go out and plant new trees with that carbon money and, in theory, those new trees will suck all of Joe's unpleasant additional carbon right out of the air. Carbon in, carbon out. A perfect balance!

The problem with this approach is that it maintains the status-quo at best. Rather than making it better, it merely keeps it from getting worse. If Joe truly cares about his impact on the environment, then he should adjust his own behavior rather than paying somebody else to pick up the slack. Rather than driving to the grocery store 5 days a week, his family could keep a list and shop only on Wednesday nights. He could ride his bike to work on nicer days. He could turn his thermostat down a couple of degrees and start wearing more sweaters. But if he is buying carbon credits, he has no further motivation to do any of those things. In his mind, he's "covered", environmentally speaking.

What would be the effect if we brought this philosophy to other realms? Would "diversity credits" allow bigots to continue to spew racial epithets and discriminate against minorities as long as they made generous donations to the United Negro College Fund? Would wicked little children be allowed to torture stray cats so long as they offset it by donating their allowances to the humane society? Perhaps if drunk drivers were to buy "Blood-Alcohol-Content Credits", they...well, you get the idea.

Carbon credits do nothing to resolve the problem they claim to resolve. If anything, they trivialize it! Environmental policy, as with any problem, is best addressed with action at the individual level -- not money.

Also at Babblermouth:
Financial Freedom Series 2 -- The Value of Values
3 Things: Time Management For Scatterbrains

Where Have All The Parents Gone?

Maybe I am now officially an old curmudgeon, but I swear children are less respectful and more obnoxious than they were when I was a child. However, I don't think it is fair to blame the kids. In truth, kids are no different than than they've ever been -- but parents have changed quite a bit! Here are some examples inspired by real life events:

Johnny has trouble behaving in school. He frequently gets into fights with the other kids, and after ignoring many failed requests to stop hitting others, Johnny is suspended. His mother's reaction? She storms into the school and demands that the school remove the suspension. Her son, she says, would never hit anybody. And besides, it would be too inconvenient to find daycare on such short notice.

Johnny's mother brings him with her to visit a friend's house. A short while later, Johnny draws all over the host's white drapes with permanent marker. Perhaps the greater insult is that his art isn't even very good. His mother's reaction? She kneels down in front of him, smiles and says in a sing-song voice, "Johnny, we only draw on paper, ok? Now, this is your first warning". No apology is made, and no offer to replace the drapes.

It's way past Johnny's bed time, and he is ignoring all requests to finish getting dressed and into bed. His father finally tells him quite firmly to get into bed, or there's going to be trouble. Johnny screams "I don't want to go to bed," and punches him in the thigh. His father's reaction? He acts as though nothing happened, and goes downstairs to play Freecell.

Parenting is not a biological description -- parenting is a job description. And it's a serious job that we must perform to the best of our ability, because the stakes are high. If we fail, we destroy not one but two lives!

The role of a parent is this: to train children to live harmoniously in a world where there are consequences for their actions. This is certainly a practical approach, because this is a world where there are consequences for our actions. Once children understand that there actions have consequences and begin to choose their actions accordingly, a bright and beautiful future opens up for them.

First of all, self-destructive behaviors practically disappear: smoking and drugs lose their allure because the risk is too great. Abstinance becomes more appealing than sexual promiscuity. Also, children are less likely to misbehave in school because it just isn't worth it to be disruptive.

In addition to avoiding decisions that have negative consequences, children begin to seek out actions that have positive consequences. They treat other people with respect and actively seek to help out around the home. They focus on their studies and have plans for a brighter future. In short, a proper understanding of consequences -- also known as the law of cause and effect -- inevitably leads to taking responsibility for one's own life.

Parents clearly wield tremendous power over their children's well-being, and it must be used with great care and diligence. Good parents don't shield children from the consequences of their actions. Rather, good parents help their children endure those consequences. Then, most importantly, they ensure that the lesson is learned so that it need never happen again.

Also At Babblermouth:

Financial Freedom Series 1 -- Cause And Effect
Who Are You?

How To Watch Football

Ah, football season has returned. I love what football stands for: pure competition, where victory doesn't go to the team with the most skill, but with the most perseverance. The tension and drama of the game tick higher and higher as the clock continues to tick down toward that final second.

Football's life and breath are found in those final moments of the game. A team can be behind by 14 points with only 5 minutes left in the game, and still come up with a victory. In those last moments, every decision counts and perseverance is king. If they succeed, it is the come-back win at the end of the game that everybody talks about, no matter how incredible a touchdown pass earlier in the game may have been. And it's that last second of the game that has changed the way I watch football forever.

You, see, I am now a 4th-quarter fan. By that, I mean I begin to watch my noon game at about 2:30. That is usually around the end of the 3rd quarter, beginning of the 4th. But that's not to say that I've missed out on any of the excitement. Sure, I miss some athletic catches and some powerful tackles, but these are not the things that make football games great.

Although I enjoy football, the games are terribly long. I have a life to live, and can no longer devote 3 hours a week to following my favorite team through the season -- but I can easily watch a single quarter every week. It's the best of both worlds!

So, if you've caught the time management bug and can't help but feel a little guilty when watching football (but can't quite turn away), become a 4th-quarter fan. It truly is the finest way to watch football.

Also At Babblermouth:
The Value Of Time
3 Things (Easy Time-Management)

I Am Not A Brainwashed Moron

I attended public school as a child and a public university as an adult. One thing my instructors consistently taught me throughout the years, either explicitly and implicitly (regardless of the subject), was this: Only brainwashed morons could be Christians.

Since I am a Christian and am not a brainwashed moron, I feel this sentiment begs an argument. I will ignore the flagrant condescension inherent in the claim and instead focus only on its most important (and false) assumption: That the evidence for the historicity of Christ does not warrant rational belief, and that you would therefore have to be a moron to put your faith in it.

I believe that this assumption is rooted in three major misconceptions:

1. The New Testament is not a reliably historical account of events and belongs more appropriately on the fiction shelf. This misconception completely ignores the very motives that the gospels themselves express. The author of the Gospel of Luke, for instance, explicitly states that he has carefully researched the facts. Such research inherently includes seeking input from primary sources -- including speaking to witnesses of the events. Because he set out specifically to prepare a historical document based on facts, there are plenty of specific references to people, places and even the times that these events occurred. Luke 2, for instance, is loaded with such details, specifically naming Caesar Augustus, Quirinius, Syria, Galilee, Judea, Bethlehem and Nazareth. Perhaps the most interesting detail is the mention of Nazareth -- a region so insignificant that until recently it was thought to not even exist. The Gospels were intended from the beginning to be historical records, supply the very details that could be used to refute them if it were possible, and were written during a time when witnesses who could have refuted them would have.
   


2. Christianity would crumble if it would acknowledge the "other" Gospels (those of Thomas, Judas and Mary, for instance). Admittedly, the fact that some "Gospels" are not included in the official canon of scripture can make it appear that the Church actively ignores evidence that contradicts their "dogmatic, preconceived notions". On closer examination, however, it becomes obvious why the Gnostic Gospels are not included in the classic canon of scripture: they don't match. The character names are the same, but the characters are not. In the Gospel of Thomas, for instance, the boy Jesus is reported to have killed another boy for bumping into him on the street. Is this just showing a different side of Jesus, or a totally fictitious one? Well, let me offer an illustration. I love the book "Huckleberry Finn". But if I were to pen a new "lost" chapter to the book, one in which Jim speaks the Queen's English and Huck becomes a hardworking oil baron, on what grounds should I or anybody demand that it be included in the book? Anybody that has read the rest of the book will instantly realize that my chapter does not belong in Huckleberry Finn. As with the Gnostic gospels, merely having characters with the same names doesn't make them fit in the broader context of the book.


3. The claims made in the New Testament are too fantastic to be taken as fact. If we were to use only what "seems possible" as our benchmark, we would be using a poor standard indeed. For a glimpse into just how strange a world this is, take a look at "twin studies". Twin studies are used to determine the influences of nature versus nurture in the development of the human psyche, and are conducted by following the lives of twins who were separated at birth -- same genetics (nature), but different families (nurture). More than once, the similarities in the lives of the twins are staggering. They end up liking the same foods, having the same occupations, driving the same cars (makes AND models!), and sometimes even their wives have the same first names! But however improbable that may be, it does happen. Now, look at the New Testament. These books, which were written with the full intent of recording history accurately and by men who stood to gain nothing by doing so, tell of a man who is born, miraculously heals several people on many different occasions -- including raising people from the dead -- and claims to be the very son of God whose arrival was predicted centuries before in the book of Isaiah. He then is killed as predicted centuries before and rises again, fully alive, to be seen by many witnesses over a period of 40 days before ascending into the heavens. Improbable? Certainly. Impossible? Nothing is impossible, and due to the credibility of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, there is every reason to believe it is true.

Christianity does not demand a "blind" faith. Christians are welcome to test their faith against reason, because the Christian faith has substance and stands up to an honest search for the facts. I believe in the life-saving work of Jesus not because I have been brainwashed, not because I have ignored evidence to the contrary, and not because I fervently wish it were true. I believe because I have examined the evidence and found that the record preserved in the New Testament is credible and continues to stand the test of time.

If you are finding that the facts don't warrant a belief in Jesus, perhaps your research is incomplete?

Recommended Reading: