SUVs plunge toward 'endangered' list

But surely the choice is not necessarily between SUVs (which I discovered on another thread are what we call "Four wheel drives" or "4WDs" for short) and hybrids, that is, cars that can use two or more fuels - petrol and electricity, for instance. There is also the choice between SUVs and single-fuel cars with smaller engines, greater fuel economy, and lower harmful emissions. But I know that there may be all sorts of personal situations, not only financial ones, that may, given the circumstances, mean that owning an SUV is not a luxury. If you have to drive over rugged terrain to get to your home or work, for instance. However, many people here own 4WDs, but only drive them on well-made roads!

 

I am afraid I don't follow. What does the priesthood of believers have to do with cars? (I have discovered that I will have to explain, for US readers, that here, SUVs or 4WDs are counted as cars, which may sound strange to American minds )

The doctrine of the priesthood of believers says (as I understand it) that every Christian has the right and duty to offer for himself the sacrifice of praise and prayer, and to approach God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ, and not through any so-called ordained priesthood.

I didn't take Andre's posts as imposing his opinions, simply stating them, but even if someone were trying to impose their personal opinions on others, that would be arrogant, but it is not priesthood (is it?)

 

Um, no, not unless you have some Scripture that got left out of the Bible the rest of us have.

Actually, the Bible says that God will destroy this creation which is corrupted because of sin. That does not mean we should needlessly destroy it, but there is no such thing as Christian environmentalism. And there is no threat of judgment for those who "damage it needlessly." That is simply adding to the Bible to try to be politically correct.

And you know this how?

No. But they also contribute to increased safety.

Not necessarily. But if you want to be truthful about it, your computer is using energy that contributes to the environmental problem, and the money you spent for it, and the money you spend for your internet connection, and the money you spend on your house, and the money you spend on virtually everything about mere subsistence could bet "put to better uses for the Kingdom." The reality is that you are not really all that concerned about it or you would be living much differently. You seem like politicians who want to pontificate about it without actually making any changes to your lifestyle.

 

What about responsible stewardship of the environment? God is redeeming His creation so it hardly makes sense for us to damage it, thereby working directly against God's clearly stated purposes.

 

How others may or may not be acting does not change the responsibility of the Christian to care for God's creation. And in most cases, an SUV is not a necessity and there are better choices avaiable.

 

At least some of the facts are misleading - like the thing about the CO2.

A disobedient Christian, who is determined to rationalize his sin, will often respond this way when the sin is brought to light.

There really is no defence for a Christian to own an SUV in most cases. In most cases, SUV's are unneeded luxuries - cheaper and more environmentally responsible vehicles are available. The scriptures clearly teach that man is to care for God's creation and that God will redeem it. To unnecessarily damage God's creation is sin, pure and simple.

 

Which of my 4 statements is false? If my argument is wrong, you will be able to point out precisely how it is wrong. Here it is again.

I have never claimed that owning an SUV was always sin. There may be some unusual cases.

 

:laugh:

You've gone from sermonizing to deciding for others what is "necessary" for them.

Your self righteous piety knows no bounds. :tonofbricks:

 

Incorrect, the scriptures teach that God will redeem his creation and not destroy it.

Consider this from Romans 8;

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

And this from Colossians 1:

For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

I shall be interested to see how people argue that "all things" here means "people only", especially given the content of the first part of this account.

God is going to redeem His creation, which is one very important reason why we should not damage it any more than strictly necessary.

 

You mean like this statement:?

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it

God is very much in the business of "telling us what to do". I am only arguing for what I believe that God is saying to us about caring for the Earth.

 

No. I mean when Jesus told a parable about people like you and the pharisees.

9To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'


13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' 14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

 

You, of course, know zero about how I actually live, except that I have a computer. I will tell you this though - I only drive to work when absolutely necessary. Normally, I cycle the 12 miles there and back. I live in a small apartment, partly because of environmental concerns. My wife and I almost never drive and we plan our use of the car carefully.

So please do not make any assumptions about how I live. I have work to do to get better. But I am not living in the fantasy of believing that I am not responsible for how my actions affect God's beloved creation.

 

I'll bet that the tax collector actually repented of his sin.....We need to repent of our sin of damaging the environment to satisfy our consumerist lusts.

Your argument is that I am being self-righteous. Of course, you have no evidence to support this claim. To point out sin does not necessarily make one self-righteous. How, and please be specific, is your implication that I "look down on everybody else" anything more than mere speculation?

Well, people will often make the "self-righteousness" claim you make when someone brings their deeds to light.

How about engaging the actual issue - if you can make a case that unneeded damage to the environment is not sin, then your accusation about me at least has some legs.

 

That's not true.

You reveal yourself daily right here at BB. Your misuse and abuse of scripture tells all of us a lot about you.

 

Convicted out of your own mouth.

I rest my case.

 

If I have abused scripture, you should be able to tell me how. Please do so. Please back up your accusation here - how, specifically, have I misused the scriptures?

Is God not going to redeem creation? Was Paul mistaken about "all things" being redeemed (in Colossians 1)? Did God not tell Adam and Eve to "take care" of His world? Where have I misinterpreted any scriptures regarding this issue?

 

More evasion. Readers, why is carpro not arguing the scriptures on this matter? Let's decide the matter on what the Scriptures teach about creation and our responsibilities toward it.

 

I think it is no co-incidence that Jesus was raised on the first day of a new week and was mistaken by Mary as being the gardener. The raising of Jesus on the first day of a new week has echoes to Genesis 1 where God began his creation of the cosmos on the first day.

God is not only in the business of redeeming mankind in Christ, He is in the business of redeeming His entire creation. And if that work was initiated with the raising of Jesus, woe betide us when we work against His purposes by making choices to consume luxuries that damage the creation that He is redeeming.

 

When will you, a perfect example of the pharisee mentioned in Luke 18, repent of your self-righteousness?

Then maybe we can discuss your misuse of scripture.

 

And there's the problem.

More self righteous pontificating.