You are hereChristianity Today: Second Coming Ecology

Christianity Today: Second Coming Ecology

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Virgil - Posted on 21 July 2008

Sunday morning, May 18, 1980, my children were leaving the little Presbyterian church in College Place, Washington, where they had been attending a program. They looked up at the sky, and a verse they had read in the Bible leapt to their minds. Jesus said that in the last days, the sun would be darkened, and the moon would not give its light. The sky was so preternaturally dark that my girls thought that the end of the world was upon us. They joined hands and ran the several blocks to our home.What had happened was the deadliest and most economically destructive volcanic event in U.S. history. Mount St. Helens had blown its dome, killing 57 people and destroying 250 homes, 47 bridges, 15 miles of railway, and 185 miles of highway. The ash cloud darkened our skies, and the nasty stuff settled on our houses and yards and cars, making it impossible to drive without clogging the air intakes and harming the engines.

It was tricky to cope with the event for the next few weeks, but the damage near our home was minor compared with what people in western Washington had to deal with. But for my little girls—for just a moment—it was the end of the world.

Christians have consistently been end-of-the-world people, with at least one eye on matters related to eschatology or "last things"—final judgment, the second coming of Christ, death and the resurrection of the dead, the renewal of Creation, and the coming of God's rule in its fullest and most visible expression. Yet contemporary realities have forced Christians to explore what it means to be an anticipatory people with a strong orientation to these last things when facing environmental degradation, and perhaps even environmental disaster.

Too Future-Minded to be of Present Good?

It's often said that many Christians—particularly evangelical Christians—don't care for the environment precisely because they are so focused on end times. If God is going to come and destroy all this anyway, why should we invest our energies in preserving it? A frequently cited example is James Watt, an evangelical believer and former Secretary of the Interior during the Reagan administration. Here is one account: "James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, 'After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.'"

To many minds, this succinct quote effectively sums up the attitudes of evangelicals, except for one crucial fact: James Watt didn't say that. This oft-repeated quote comes from a journalist who didn't bother to confirm something that he read on the Internet.

What did James Watt actually say? The only time he gave public testimony about the relationship between his Christian beliefs and care for the environment was in February 1981, in response to Oregon Democrat Jim Weaver, before a House subcommittee on the environment.

Mr. Weaver: I believe very strongly that we should not … use up all the oil that took nature a billion years to make in one century.

We ought to leave a few drops of it for our children, their children. They are going to need it … I wonder if you agree, also, in the general statement that we should leave some of our resources—I am now talking about scenic areas or preservation, but scenic resources for our children? Not just gobble them up all at once?

Secretary Watt: Absolutely. That is the delicate balance the Secretary of the Interior must have, to be a steward for the natural resources for this generation as well as future generations.

Click to read the rest of this article

Ed's picture

There's so much wrong with this article that I think an entire article correcting its errors would be necessary. Since I have no time to do so, I'll leave it to others. I will, however, point out a couple of obvious flaws - one theological, one economic, and one environmental.

First, theologically we are told by the author that we need to "live with a theology of limits." A consistent preterist can see how erroneous this statement is; redemption is complete, all is fulfilled, man is no longer at enmity with God - there are no limits. That's the theology that we Christians need to embrace - the unlimited grace, pleasure, passion, prosperity, forgiveness, mercy and joy of God. Only "wilderness Christians" (to quote Tim Martin), who believe they still live in the wilderness, awaiting entry into the Promised Land, can believe such tripe. Those who realize that the Promised Land has been entered, the kingdom restored, the fullness poured out upon the whole world, cannot believe in limits. The possibilities are endless; unlimited.

The second quick point is economic. If you want to see environmental degradation, go to socialistic countries. Without the mechanism of private property, there is nothing to keep the government from trashing the environment for its own benefit. Private property, and the economic theory which is based upon it (capitalism) compels the owner of the resource/property to care for it; either for his/her own enjoyment, or for the economic benefit of it. Either way, ONLY people with an economic interest in something seeks to protect it.

Finally, environmentally we must wake up to the fact that the single NATURAL eruption of a volcano did more environmental damage than years of automobiles and other "man-made" environmental degradations. Yet, after only a few short years, the area which was devasted by Mount St. Helens had recovered and began thriving once more. The earth's own natural processes, put in place and controlled by God, do far more damage than the supposed damage done by evil Westerners.

Am I saying that we should not care for the environment? Heaven forbid. We have all the more reason to care for it - by advocating private property, free markets, technology advancement, etc. As a more environmentally conscious public demands products which are "environmentally friendly" (like biodegradable soaps, etc.), more products will come to market, more companies will find cleaner ways to produce and distribute their products, we'll find new ways to create cleaner energy, and more efficiency which presumably is better for the environment. All these things will be demanded by a more fully informed public, a public that lives in "the new world" of the kingdom of God; both citizens and foreigners. It is the LIMITLESS thinking that will drive us to a cleaner and better world, not government mandates meant to cripple free markets and steal private property away from its owners. We, as preterist Christians, must be on the leading edge of the new paradigm.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

tom-g's picture

Hey Ed,

"It is the LIMITLESS thinking that will drive us to a cleaner and better world, not government mandates meant to cripple free markets and steal private property away from its owners. We, as preterist Christians, must be on the leading edge of the new paradigm."

As a preterist Christian committed to the gospel of Christ, count me out as a participant in advocating the "LIMITLESS new paradigm" of the ages old Anti Christ gospel.

Tom

plymouthrock's picture

Tom,

Could you be a litte more specific regarding your problem(s) with Ed's statement?

Personally, I feel what you have written is irresponsible in that you make a derogatory comment without fully explaining the reason(s) for the statement- as if to summarily shoot down your opponent in the eyes of the readers.

Please be more gracious with your words here and with those with whom you dialogue; it is the Christian thing, even the preterist Christian thing, to do.

plymouthrock!

tom-g's picture

Thank you PR,

Ed's statement which I repeated was itself a boldly asserted assumption that in no way attempted to justify theoretically, philosophically, logically or biblically the validity of the assertion.

Why would one who considers his statement as a baldly irresponsible to the truth and derogatory comment be questioned when responding in the negative, while the original comment is endorsed and left unchallenged?

I am ready and willing at all times to stand and justify my statements theoretically, logically and biblically and have in fact done so many times in public debates with the leading economists of this theory. Including the current head of the Foundation For Economic Education (FEE), while he occupied the endowed Ludwig Von Mises Chair as a professor of economics at Hillsdale College, as well as his predecessor Professor Hans Senholtz of Grove City College, as well as the professor of George Mason University, Dr. Wayne Gabel, the head of Citizens for a Sound Economy (SSE) at a national CPAC convention at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Similarly, if Ed (or anyone else) were to offer a philosophical, theoretical, logical or biblical argument for his assertion, I would be more than privileged to respond in like manner.

Tom

davo's picture

No… please don't Tom -- your mindless derisions are usually much shorter than your convoluted rants.

davo

Ed's picture

If I were to claim that I have all the answers, as you continually claim, I would be "thinking more highly of (my)self than I should." What I propose is what has been going on for decades, inventors and entrepreneurs have been creating new technology that has been making our lives better and better. I have no need to explain what those changes are, because I cannot. All I can do is to look at the past, and make general assumptions about the future.

I understand why you object to my statements. You desire "protected markets," those that give the lower income Americans no options for buying clothes, food, technology because the goods produced in this country are higher end, and more expensive. Global markets benefit not only this country, but all. Your "nationalism" denies the gospel to the rest of the world.

Global economics opens new markets for the sharing of the gospel. It brings prosperity to people who were formerly in deep, depressive poverty. Christ's completed redemptive work necessitates bringing LIFE, abundant life, to all throughout the world.

You can disagree all you want, and "brag" about debating so-and-so, but it does nothing to prove your point. I, for one, am tired of hearing those who are exalting government over God, and making xenophobia the centerpiece of their economic paradigm.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Ed's picture

"I am ready and willing at all times to stand and justify my statements theoretically, logically and biblically and have in fact done so many times in public debates with the leading economists of this theory. Including the current head of the Foundation For Economic Education (FEE), while he occupied the endowed Ludwig Von Mises Chair as a professor of economics at Hillsdale College, as well as his predecessor Professor Hans Senholtz of Grove City College, as well as the professor of George Mason University, Dr. Wayne Gabel, the head of Citizens for a Sound Economy (SSE) at a national CPAC convention at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C."

I for one would love to see these debates. Are they published? Recorded?

Or were these not debates at all? Were you just one of those annoying questioners who badgered the presenters with questions that were answered, albeit not to your satisfaction?

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Virgil's picture

Why?

JL's picture

Tom,

Does that mean that as a preterist, you endorse the socialist quasi-dispensational paradigm of the article?

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

tom-g's picture

Hey JL,

As usual your comments are devoid of reason or sense. My comment was in response to Ed. (Does JL's response meet with your criteria for responsibility, PR?)

Tom

JL's picture

Tom,

In context, Ed's "limitless" was expressed in opposition to the author's "live with a theology of limits."

Ed does believe there are real physical and moral limits that we are stuck with and must operate under. He is speaking out against the false limits the author wishes to inflict on us.

Your remark ignores the context of Ed's remark. As usual your comments are devoid of reason or sense. Your comment was not in response to Ed, but to a remark deliberately taken out of context.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

tom-g's picture

As usual JL, you do greatly err.

My response was to positively decline Ed's plea for all preterist Christians to join in the new paradigm he described,

Tom

Virgil's picture

Which paradigm is that? He proposed smaller government, a cleaner environment, a world living "in the Kingdom" and free market. I have to agree with JL - the opposite of this has to be some socialist paradigm.

plymouthrock's picture

Tom,

Note that JL asked a direct question - completely accountable, don't you think?

plymouthrock!

Ed's picture

For Tom to object to my statement, it is logical to assume that Tom doesn't want a "cleaner world," or "private property," or "free markets." Yes indeed, that about sums up socialism.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Starlight's picture

Ed,

Just wanted to check in and see if you were still planning on being in Houston in Sept.

Norm

Ed's picture

Yes I am, but not my family. I am driving down with my cousin Tom, and he and I have a room at a local hotel. I'd love to get together...

My cousin is a Christian, but knows nothing of my "weird" views. :)

I'll make sure I call you when I roll into town - let's make sure I have your phone number (send it to my e-mail if you want - burleywu@yahoo.com)

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

tom-g's picture

The atheist, socialist free market advocates have always found it necessary to hide behind such rhetoric. And it seems even the very elect are capable of being conned into believing it.

You ought to begin to study and adopt the American political, social and religious philosophy of our founders. Try it - You'll like it.

Tom

Ed's picture

I would rather continue to embrace the biblical concept of private property (thou shalt not steal), free markets, and honest money. In addition, I prefer seeing this abundant life extended to all the planet, not just America.

In every one of your previous rants, you have failed to show how free markets equal socialism, as you continue to falsely claim. You deny your own socialistic views, while making false accusations towards those who embrace a more biblical, and less American, paradigm.

If you want to learn more about the biblical warrant for free markets, read Gary North.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

tom-g's picture

Well, Well, Ed

Its amazing what a little straight talk can bring to light. When the rhetoric is unmasked the typical free market economic hatred for the founder's American economic system of protectionism is exposed.

The system that was founded upon the command to "come out from among them and be ye separate" codified in the Declaration of Independence was certainly a hated event. The separated independent new nation brought forth on this continent that holds as self evident truth the God given rights of the individual certainly can not long endure upon the face of the earth with enemies who want to see a less American paradigm.

If you want to learn more about the biblical economic system of our American Constitutional system read about the leading of the invisible hand of God in Adam Smith. Then realize your free market rhetoric advocates an ecumenical indissoluble world system based upon glorifying the love of money above God, family and country. Gary North to the contrary not withstanding.

Christ sent his disciples out to evangelize without money or provisions and their preaching of the gospel turned the world upside down. Your pseudo ersatz system sends free trade economic ministers out to evangelize the world into a single free trade world system and atheistic communism welcomes them with open arms. They know better than you that a house divided against itself can not stand, Christ has nothing to do with Beilul.

You're so trapped by the free trade siren song and its worldly allure to the fruits of the lust of the flesh, you've lost sight of the Christ that bought you. It is said that he who will not learn from history is doomed to repeat it. Israel once rejected God as their king and asked for a king like every other nation. As you advocate a world free trade socialized system, be careful what you wish for, you're liable to get it.

Tom

Ed's picture

Tom,
I'll not engage your intellectual-dwarfism beyond a quick comment. You have not shown once that free trade is "socialized" by any stretch of the imagination. You are as bad as the Calvinists who think that all theology was locked up in the 17th century, and leave no room for continued study and learning. Just because, at the time, the founders believed that the best way to fund the government was through tariffs does not mean that it is THE biblical system, let along the best system.

In addition, you'll find nowhere in my original comment on this thread anything about tariffs, good or bad. I have held out an olive branch in the past, trying to show you that minimal tariffs, being used as the sole source of funding government, can be justified while still believing in free markets. Yet, you continually throw garbage into the discussion rather than actually discuss.

I had hoped that we'd seen the last of you when I didn't see your comments here for awhile. I am saddened that I was wrong, and those of us who enjoy pleasant discourse have to be subjected to your comments.

I'll return to my previous policy concerning you - I'll ignore you. good day to you.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

tom-g's picture

Ed,

Other than a repeated unsupported assertion, you have in no way shown by any stretch of the imagination that free trade is anything other than the means to socialize the world in a single system. It would seem that in your recognition of my repeated claims you would at some time offer some theoretical economic justification for your assertion. I have even attempted to further a dialog by asking for you to simply define your term of free market. In the absence of such I can only assume you are not academically or intellectually capable of doing so and your assumptions are strictly the result of parroting someone else's theories.

In addition, you'll find that nowhere in my comments in this thread have I mentioned tariffs, good or bad. Nor have I mentioned the funding of government. Nor Calvin.

As to your turning tail and running away to hide when confronted with explaining your fallacy, I expect that, since your position is untenable. My concluding remark to you about your assertion is PROVE IT!!

Tom

Ed's picture

Okay Tom, against my better judgment, I'll bite.

Free markets are those where one person or company can buy from another, at an agreed upon price, with little or no government interference. Within this definition, I recognize that government may be involved in legal ways (e.g., ensuring that contracts are honored), or materials ways (e.g., building an infrastructure to ensure the distribution of products and services). Keeping this government involvement/interference to a minimum enables buyers and sellers to freely exchange goods and services for legal tender, or other goods and services (i.e., bartering).

To have a free markets also includes the freedom to invent, develop, manufacture, and distribute those goods and services. Unhindered competition is also necessary to these free markets. The freedom of the consumer NOT to buy is also inherent in these markets.

This is by no means a complete or exhaustive definition, but it's sufficient for the purpose here. Now, refute away.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

judge's picture

Ed:A consistent preterist can see how erroneous this statement is; redemption is complete, all is fulfilled, man is no longer at enmity with God - there are no limits. That's the theology that we Christians need to embrace - the unlimited grace, pleasure, passion, prosperity, forgiveness, mercy and joy of God.

Judge: Unlimited passion and unlimited pleasure , unlimited prosperity?

I just dont see this in the NT.

ED:The second quick point is economic. If you want to see environmental degradation, go to socialistic countries.

Judge: Or we could go to third world countries used by the west.

ED:Private property, and the economic theory which is based upon it (capitalism) compels the owner of the resource/property to care for it; either for his/her own enjoyment, or for the economic benefit of it. Either way, ONLY people with an economic interest in something seeks to protect it.

ED: This eems to be a myth, Modern capitalisms only allegiance is to the dollar, making money for themselves and shareholders
If they can get their own nest feathered before they have to pay the price for what they do they will do it every time. This is the real world

ED:Am I saying that we should not care for the environment?

Judge: I dont see how you can if you propose unlimited pleasure , unlimited propsperity and unlimited passion.
Something must give.

ED: not government mandates meant to cripple free markets and steal private property away from its owners

Judge: Government mandates aren't always meant to cripple free markets as you state or steal private property.

The fact is that sometimes capitalists think of themselves first , they think of feathering their own nest and not of what is good for everyone, or good for the long run.

ED:It is the LIMITLESS thinking that will drive us to a cleaner and better world, not government mandates meant to cripple free markets and steal private property away from its owners. We, as preterist Christians, must be on the leading edge of the new paradigm.

Judge: That is an interesting theory but as yet you provide no reason whatsoever to trust this theory .

Judge:

Ed's picture

Look around Judge.

30 years ago, the prevailing system of thought told us that we were running out of oil. Long gas lines, expensive fuel, and inefficient automobiles were the order of the day. Today, we have knowledge of trillions of barrels of oil at our disposal. Prices (when compared to other commodities, like gold and silver) have remained relatively stable, automobiles are getting between 2 and 4 times the gas mileage as they did in the mid-70s, and no one has to wait more than a few minutes to fill up their gas tank. It's called progress, and it all came about because Carter and Reagan systematically deregulated the oil and gas industries.

Computers and the internet, cell phones, and all the technology connected to these things are creating economic opportunities all over the world. Whether YOU know it or not, prosperity is happening on a global scale, sans those countries who are convinced that socialism is the answer.

You want to talk about the West's exploitation of "third world countries"? Okay, lets take India and Hong Kong, e.g. Two territories that were part of the British Commonwealth at one time - and now two of the fastest growing economies on earth. Great Britain, on the other hand, is largely socialistic - those caring individuals who allow their poor to live in squalor.

If you really care about knowing what I'm talking about, visit CATO's website and read their Global Prosperity Report.

Oh, and your claim that you don't see prosperity in the bible; funny thing is, postmillennialism (which was the prevailing system of thought for centuries before dispensationalism infected the minds of Americans) teaches that we would have that very thing during the millennium. Well, we're in the New Heavens and the New Earth, where righteousness dwells. We are trees in the field of God, giving shade to the nations. The Law of God (the law of love) is going forth like a flood into the whole earth.

Get your head out of the pessimistic sand, and see what the word is saying.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

judge's picture

Boy ED you are extremely sensitive to anyone probing your ideas aren't you? :D

Ed life is not just about having a fast growing economy. Or as one man said "life does not consist in an abundance of possessions". Life is far more interesting and fulfilling than that shallow approach.

And please dont misrepresent me. I at least had the courtesy to actually quote you rather than providing a caricature of what you said.

I did not claim prosperity was not in the bible. I questioned your extreme and seemingly dangerous ideas about unlimited pleasure and unlimited propsperity.

Anyway it matters little. The view you espouse is finished with, for ever probably. It doesn't mean that we cant be optimistic (as if i ever said that :D ). Or that life cant be good and enjoyable.

It means though that the more self serving ways of the west are over, finished, gone. Yes, older foklks will cling to thier illusions and get angry when questioned, but a lot of younger peopel see right through the hypocrisy and for that Im glad.

All the best

Ed's picture

Regardless of what young "peopel" (sic) believe or think, God's word says that the kingdom of God will grow and fill the whole earth (see Micah 4 and Isaiah 2), and Ezekiel speaks of the River that flows from the Temple (the kingdom) that will continually grow and grow into a flood. These are examples of unlimited growth that we see evidence of over the last 2,000 years. As Americans, like yourself, disdain the blessings of God, in exchange for "the mess of pottage" that socialism and the environmental movement promise, other nations in the world will see the blessings of Abraham (he was one of the most prosperous men in the Middle East at the time) come to them, as they are more and more faithful to serving God, and loving their neighbors, as they love themselves.

Oh, and I do apologize for using "unlimited pleasure", since you thought that it meant something that I did not intend to communicate. Our pleasure is found in God (have you ever read John Piper's work, or Doug Wilson's?). He is our Satisfaction, and it is limitless, unending. The scriptures speak of pleasures that are found in God, and this is the promise that the nations have, in God.

These are unlimited, endless possibilities. This is in direct opposition to the limited, pessimistic vision of the author of this article. And it is biblical, whether you want to believe it or not.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

judge's picture

ED you still misrepresenting even after I asked you not to.
I have not mentioned socialism or the environmental movement. You are just poisoning the well. All you can envisage apparently is the nonsense from your reconstructionist days or socialism.
So in an emotional knee jerk if i question anything you say you react and say i am opting for socialism and environmentalism.
Stop being so sensitive for goodness sake.

And again please dont muisrepresent me...unless that is part of the Kingdom as well?

Ed's picture

Well what exactly is it that you believe? I wrote an article specific post, you responded. I am merely responding to your assertions.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

judge's picture

Well i probably haven't changed my perspective much since this

http://www.planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=16...

Except that I am now agnostic WRT whether the earth will be here eternally or not.

Mankind as I see is being forced to put aside their differences, religious ( as in man made religions) and racial. The weapons we have now are too dangerous, and the world is now too small to fight amongst ourselves,

We stand on the brink of mankinds brightest hour.

Socialism is of course not the answer but the short falls of the practice capitalism need be addressed as well.

Ed's picture

This report is available for $29.95 from CATO. This is the synopsis of the book from the bookstore site:

Is capitalism contagious? If so, to what extent; and how does it spread? In new research published in this year’s report, Russell S. Sobel and Peter T. Leeson examine these questions empirically. They find that economic freedom does in fact spread, although not as strongly as might be suggested by the emphasis this idea has been given in US foreign policy. In the report, Sobel and Leeson discuss the implications of these results for foreign policy and offers some predictions about the future path, and spread, of global economic freedom.

This year's report notes that economic freedom remains on the rise. The average economic freedom score rose from 5.1 (out of 10) in 1980 to 6.6 in the most recent year for which data are available. Of the 102 nations with scores in 1980 and in the most recent index, 90 recorded improvements in their economic freedom score, and just nine saw a decline. In this year's index, Hong Kong retains the highest rating for economic freedom, 8.9 out of 10, followed by Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, United Kingdom, and the United States.

The first Economic Freedom of the World Report, published in 1996, was the result of a decade of research by a team which included several Nobel Laureates and over 60 other leading scholars in a broad range of fields, from economics to political science, and from law to philosophy. This is the 11th edition of Economic Freedom of the World and this year's publication ranks 141 nations for 2005, the most recent year for which data are available.

It's called "Economic Freedom of the World: 2007 Annual Report" by By James Gwartney and Robert Lawson, with Russel S. Sobell and Peter T. Leeson; and it is found at http://www.cato.org/pubs/efw/

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Ed's picture

The saga continues. In an earlier post, our good friend tom-g made claims of his debates with Sennholz, the unnamed current head of FEE (who wouldn't know the name of the man you debated), and someone named Dr. Wayne Gabel, the supposed head of CSE. This last debate is alleged to have occurred at a recent CPAC meeting.

Well, in the interest of gaining knowledge (since tom-g insists that I don't know anything about economics, and am mislead by these free-market "global socialists"), I looked up the CPAC website, and could find no record of Dr. Gabel speaking there, and in addition, no mention of Tom. So, I went to CSE's websites (they have two), and searched for this "head of CSE," Dr. Wayne Gabel, and found no record of him at either of their sites.

Since tom-g's qualification (he's mentioned these debates before) as an economist is based on these debates, I'd love to read them. If indeed he has shown Richard Ebeling (the President of FEE), Dr. Sennholz, and this phantom Dr. Gabel a thing or two about economics, perhaps he could enlighten the rest of us with the transcripts of these debates/discussions. After all, if he made such an impact, it would be nice to know what great truths he imparted to such lesser men as he.

Yes, this post is dripping with sarcasm. I seriously doubt that Tom's "debates" with these giants of economic intellectual thought were mere questions asked at the end of a speech, OR as in the case of Dr. Gabel, regardless of who he actually is, a dinner table discussion. I am also certain that their response to his assertions are similar to mine: incredulity.

IF, on the other hand, Tom can make these transcripts (or videos) available, I'll listen with an open mind to the dialogue. Otherwise, I'll start dropping names, as he does, of the people that I have e-mailed, or with whom I have discussed economics in the past.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Ed's picture

"lesser men as he" should read "lesser men than he."

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

tom-g's picture

Ed,

Unfortunately personal family matters including deaths have occupied my time in recent weeks and delayed answering your questions. One quick answer however could be located, if you will go to Wikipedia and research Citizens for a Sound Economy you will find ready reference to Dr. Gabel under the category of former personnel where he is listed as a former Director and a former President.

I have not been able to readily find archives of CPAC dating back into the 1980s when this debate took place. When I have more personal time I will search the public record further for your benefit. As to Richard Ebeling, while he was still a professor at Hillsdale College: our public debate took place on Friday, June 2, 1989 at the Harley Hotel Ballroom in Independence, Ohio under the sponsorship of the Constitutional Law Foundation; The Libertarian Party of Ohio; and The American Opinion Speakers Bureau. If you have any access to these organizations I am certain they could confirm the debate for you.

By the way, the topic of the CPAC debate was "Protectionism vs. Free Trade, I argued the protectionist position and Dr, Gabel the free trade position. With Prof. Ebeling it was: "Resolved, the adoption of the free trade philosophy as the official policy of the United States will result in the destruction of the United States." I obviously argued the affirmative protectionist position. Prof. Ebeling the negative free trade position.

Tom

Ed's picture

I have searched and searched all over and cannot find even a mention of your debates. I would definitely like to see any kind of transcript that might be available.

The one place I didn't look was on any database where peer-reviewed journals archives are listed. I used to have access when attending Western Michigan, and later Walden, but since then no longer have access to their libraries. If you can find a transcript for either, and could e-mail it to me (I'll give you my e-mail when and if you locate one or both), I would much appreciate it.

I cannot guarantee that I will agree with you, or that you will change my mind about free markets, but I am always willing to look over what you've written or said in debate. Perhaps if you cannot find one or both, you could direct me to a particularly good book that you recommend (I'd prefer YOUR thoughts, but if not available, I'll settle for those you'd recommend). I promise that I would look that over as well.

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

tom-g's picture

Hey Ed,

I am sorry for the delay in getting back, still pressed for time.

You ask for a recommendation of books that you could study. Two that are a must to study for an understanding of economics and the philosophy and theory upon which it is founded are Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith and Human Action by Ludwig von Mises.

A very valuable tool also is a book published by Libertarian Press titled Planning For Freedom. This book contains 17 essays of von Mises that are very layman reader friendly and cover virtually every fundamental theoretic economic aspect that you could wish to know. There is also a very informative essay at the back of the book by the late Murray Rothbard, titled The Essential Von Mises that should be a must study.

There is one essay in this book that directly speaks to the situation that I have identified and debated with professor Ebeling, Free Trade the Destruction of the United States. It is #15 Capital Supply and American Prosperity. If you study this essay and would like to see the fallacy of the free market and free trade philosophy exposed, then I would be very happy to do so. You certainly must accept Ludwig von Mises as an authority for the individual free market, free trade beliefs you hold.

Tom

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43