Merritt, Gushee: On creation care, evangelicals must move toward 'we'

Aaron...

I find it difficult to believe you could possibly be that naive.


1st, litter obscures...defiles...the beauty that God desires for all of us to live amongst and enjoy. That is damage to the environment.

2ndly, litter many times makes its way into streams and rivers...polluting the environment even more.

Hope this helps.

 

Litter is ugly and a form of vandalism, but it doesn't damage the environment. And God's will is that we have dominion over and subdue the earth to meet our needs. "Beauty to live amongst and enjoy"? Where do you hippies come up with that claptrap?

Talk of naivete!

 

Yes, but with power comes responsibility.

I can't be a hippie. I have short hair. :laugh: I come up with the "claptrap" by being a human made by God in His image who stands in awe of the beauty of His creation. I fail to see how someone could not see that.

 

Aaron...

Now, all I can say is that this is actually frightening. It causes me to seriously...SERIOUSLY....wonder about you, Aaron.

Honestly Aaron, I dont know what teaching you have unfortunetely encountered and internalised, but this is very VERY disturbing.

The only people...outside of cults like the David Koreshes of the world...who I can in any way imagine sounding like your quote up there Aaron, is people of the ilk of those Wackos out in Westboro Kansas. The "God hates fags" bunch.

Those are the only people I can think of that might possibly post something like what you posted there.

I hope this causes you to maybe reflect on whatever teaching you have come
under, and maybe re-evaluate the validity of that groups teaching.

And I say this as a conservative evangelical Baptist.

May God help you.

 

I didn't want to, but I did re-read it. That land was very useful before it was ruined by the flood of liquid ash. That ash lake is the byproduct of several things mentioned your post: dammed rivers; blasted (read strip-mined) mountains; and burned coal. You're not talking about use. You're talking about the abuse and the rape of the earth to satisfy your wants and lusts right now. The only problem with this is that our children will be left with nothing. You can say that God will provide for their needs in the future, but that would be small comfort. God has already provided for their needs. The earth is stocked with the things that we need for food and shelter and for us to make a living. But the supplies of these things are finite. They will run out eventually, and then where will our children be. And who will they have to blame for their deprivation but us for our unchecked gluttony.

We are called to have dominion over creation and to subdue it, but we are not called to the wanton destruction of it. It is God's gift to us, and we should take care of it. It is not a matter of the reality or falsity of global warming. It is a matter of stewardship. We are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves. If that does not include the stewardship of the creation, I don't what does.

Tim Reynolds

 

ummm...neighbor is a person

 

I'm not sure if you're not getting the point everyone is trying to make or if you're being purposefully dense. We care for others and for future generations by making wise use of the resources with which God has gifted us. For example, it would be unwise use of resources for me to drive a huge SUV when my 2 door Chevrolet Lumina coupe fits my needs fine.

 

First, it is an exaggeration that "everyone" is trying to make your false point. Second there is no imposition on future generations by driving SUV's. There is nothing in scripture that intends to place the command with regards to neighbors in the context of the false environmental movement (such absurd silliness is the height of eisegesis) of which is nothing more than a political tool to gain power and has little to no real basis in fact.

 

You know, we don't have a limitless oil supply. What kind of car do you drive?

I've asked you this before but I couldn't get a straight answer. What environmental concerns, if any, should we have? Do you agree with Aaron's post that's generated so much controversy in this thread?

 

There is currently no end in sight.

ummm.......sure you did

The only environmental concerns I have is the lies being spread about the environment. If a company makes a mess make them clean it up and answer for it. If someone litters make them clean it up and fine them. Outside of that it is all a power tool.

I am not going back and looking at it again. I have my own positions on this. He can represent his own.

 

Are you serious?

Those people are idiots. It takes only a fraction of the energy to recycle materials than it does to use uncrecycled materials. That's academic.

That is very true.

 

The naivite is yours on the topic. Every year, billions of dolalr are speant on cleaning up streams and rivers that are poisoned by discarded litter.

 

OK, time to separate out some propaganda. Enviro-extremists and Earth worshippers are well-known for taking a half-truth (or one with incomplete info) and building a worldview around it. Some of your points I have no problem with at all. Others, however...

This has nothing to do with man's behavior. Mt. K's been without snow before, and the ice has shrunk before...long before we had industrialized society. "Global warming" has been shown to be a politically-motivated crock, and you discredit some of your other, more legitimate points, with stuff like this.

An invasive species known as the woolly adelgid is responsible for a vast majority of the tree deaths in the Smokies, particularly the fir and hemlock deaths. That's not acid rain. (of course, when you have a nice soapbox, why let facts mess up your using it?)

Once again...we have no proof of causality. And no proof at all of man-made causality.


Of course, there's extremist points of the other stripe, such as:

That's simply factually wrong. A few weeks ago, our youth cleaned up a section of road near our church. We found an old refrigerator, leaking compressor oil into the ground. This was about twenty feet from a stream.

Of course it damages the environment. To suggest otherwise simply ignores facts.

 

So good so far.

Oops. Ever seen the run off from a parking lot? A little oil does nothing to the environment.

 

I am not for littering damage to the environment or otherwise. I am for all sources of energy be it oil, gas, coal, wind, sun, nuclear or anything that can come along but withhold none of it.