Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For if you really believe that God created all of nature, the animals, the plants the fresh air and clean water..why do you overall support a political party and agenda which is anathema to the environment and nature?
What political party? http://www.soompi.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif (broken link) Please clarify.
Quote:
I am no longer a Christian, but I must say, one of the first things that turned me off to Christianity was the total silence and insensitivity towards nature and environmental conservation which I experienced in just about every church.
You are no longer a Christian because of this reason? Please clarify because it can lead to many assumption. No seriously, environmental is actually one of the last thing people have their mind on. I admit, that's me too.
Quote:
I find the attitude of most Christians rather sickening, as they view the planet as a big disposable diaper, and also see the current destruction of nature as just fulfillment of bible prophecy.
Instead of saying "most Christians", you should have say "most Christians I encountered" because that would make a difference on how people understand your post. Also, I don't view the planet as a "big disposable diaper". Are you talking about bigger issue?
When I'm on the highway, I see trash and it saddens me that people would do such things. Do I go around throwing trash everywhere? No. Does it mean that I don't recycle properly? No. How about getting mad when I see something injustice done to God's creation? Am I guilty that I don't care as much? yes.
Quote:
What we need is a new spirituality which reverences the creator by honoring his masterpiece- what we have now is the total opposite.
If this is where your passion is, then you should do something about it. This isn't where my passion is but I must say that this is the area where I lack. It's like me saying "Most Christians don't care about orphans and widows. All they care about is their money." We can contribute in small ways to make a difference, and can you help them to be aware of it? Yes. This is the best thing you can do. Even if they don't care, there are other Christians who do concern these kind of things. The body of Christ has many members that focus on different issues, not just one. Don't give up just because most appear to be this way.
there is no room for degrees of uncertainty within Chemistry: carbon dioxide does what it does. are you arguing something pointless? like history? because carbon dioxide does what it does... or are you proposing is doing something different? like having no effect... if so, and you can show your assertions quite eassily i suppose, you would be deamed a revolutionary genious within the field of environmental science. I'm affraid mathmatical statistics only tell you about the information being measured, not the substance of truths within reality. you are arguing votes counted and measurements taken... basically you are arguing numbers on a paper about numbers on a paper about samples taken and information drawn about past un-observed events( not directly at least) while Christ is befumbled at your utter lack of Chemical curiosity... or missunderstood and untimely environmental genious... you deicide. personally, i think the environmental scientista understand the math involved... not sure why you would think they wont... unless its about culture i suppose.
My point is that the world temperature has changed less than 1 degree in 100 years with a 2 degree margin of error yet this proves global warming. Not. Polar ice caps are melting while others are forming yet we are only told about the loss not the gain. Half truths are half truths. As for the hole in the ozone it was discovered about 50 years ago but we have not evidence of the condition of the ozone 100 years ago, 500 years ago, 6000 years ago.
Following the conversation doesn't involve extracting one thing I said and making it a talking point, try again.
Phaz has a great point, OMG can't believe I said that, LOL.
I for one recycle regularly, as I mentioned earlier. I drive my vehicle only when necessary and most of the time I recycle when I use my vehicle therefor my carbon foot print should be negated by my actions. I also help the economy by my recycling, I reduce waste. What else can be expected?
Phaz has a great point, OMG can't believe I said that, LOL.
I for one recycle regularly, as I mentioned earlier. I drive my vehicle only when necessary and most of the time I recycle when I use my vehicle therefor my carbon foot print should be negated by my actions. I also help the economy by my recycling, I reduce waste. What else can be expected?
LOL
I do all kinds of things that would be considered "Green". The carbon footprint issue is a political ploy as it stands right now.
Global warming specifically is not the true debate, it is whether or not the warming trend will truly be catastrophic to the earth and if so is man actually the cause. If man is not the cause, what then?
This like many other issue you can find a balance in the middle. Should we just ignore the environment? Absolutely not!
But there is no conclusive evidence that the earth will be uninhabitable in the future either, so I will keep driving my truck, living conservatively and enjoy life.
I do all kinds of things that would be considered "Green". The carbon footprint issue is a political ploy as it stands right now.
Global warming specifically is not the true debate, it is whether or not the warming trend will truly be catastrophic to the earth and if so is man actually the cause. If man is not the cause, what then?
This like many other issue you can find a balance in the middle. Should we just ignore the environment? Absolutely not!
But there is no conclusive evidence that the earth will be uninhabitable in the future either, so I will keep driving my truck, living conservatively and enjoy life.
That's not the debate, either. No one with any scientific heft under their belt debates that the implications are catastrophic, and that man is a primary cause. The "debate" is propagated by the know-nothing conservative media you clearly consume with vigor.
There is no conclussive evidence that earth will be "uninhabitable" (though "in the future" is a long way, and Earth most certainly will be uninhabitable if you fast-forward far enough). However, there is undeniable evidence that carbon emissions will create a very inhospitable environmet that will start out being incredibly hard on third-world economies, and will inevitably affect you and your truck and your Kenny Chesney CD, hoss.
Volcanoes, Tornadoes, Hurricanes, Wildfires, Blizzards, so many natural disasters but man is at fault.
That's not the debate, either. No one with any scientific heft under their belt debates that the implications are catastrophic, and that man is a primary cause. The "debate" is propagated by the know-nothing conservative media you clearly consume with vigor.
There is no conclussive evidence that earth will be "uninhabitable" (though "in the future" is a long way, and Earth most certainly will be uninhabitable if you fast-forward far enough). However, there is undeniable evidence that carbon emissions will create a very inhospitable environmet that will start out being incredibly hard on third-world economies, and will inevitably affect you and your truck and your Kenny Chesney CD, hoss.
Well it is certainly good that you have the scientific heft to know what cd I listen to.
It is great to see that scientific minds have to use a fallacy to try to give their point more substance.
Given the fact that many american cities are unhealthy to live in based on localized pollution and no one can get that taken care of you might as well conceed to the fact that changing a few light bulbs and buying scooter isn't going to do squat.
I wonder if starvation already qualifies 3rd world countries as inhospitable, Not sure they would notice the difference.
The problem is that global warming and the alarmist view certainly gives idiots the excuse not to take care of pressing local matters. I mean, who cares about the "smog alert" in metropolitan St louis when the ice caps are melting and polar bears that can swim are trapped on a piece of ice in the water, oh wait,,,,,
When ever christianity "sides" with something it loses its neutrality-which is basically its history and is why it is so useless. See the results of it splitting into liberal and conservative and siding with political parties; it loses its primary message. It become difficult to critique anything, and that is what christianity should be doing, critiquing everything (including the environmental movement, not from an ideological point of view which may be political, but from its own structures), when one has "friends". A "friend" influences or limits what one says in so many ways and creates, as James has it, a double minded man. You wanting to drag christianity into such a movement, to mirror your thoughts, is akin to wanting christianity to be double minded as you wish it to be like you, who is also double minded.
For if you really believe that God created all of nature, the animals, the plants the fresh air and clean water..why do you overall support a political party and agenda which is anathema to the environment and nature? And why don't your teachings and behavior reflect stewardships for God's masterpiece? One only needs to look to the recent push by the GOP to dismantle the EPA and their abominable efforts to favor big polluters and raping of existing resources..and the deafening silence from just about every pulpit on these matters.
I am no longer a Christian, but I must say, one of the first things that turned me off to Christianity was the total silence and insensitivity towards nature and environmental conservation which I experienced in just about every church.
And if you claim to follow the bible, why don't you hearken towards Deut which implies that 'if you defile the land, it will vomit you out?' Or how about 'God will destroy those who destroy the earth' in Rev 11? If you look deeply at your behaviors and attitudes, that one SHOULD really frighten you! The irony of it all is that when folks witness the damage which will soon increase to a critical level, they will surely blame the gays and the unbelievers.
I find the attitude of most Christians rather sickening, as they view the planet as a big disposable diaper, and also see the current destruction of nature as just fulfillment of bible prophecy. I guess they just aren't smart enough to realize that religious practices of domination and subduing of the planet are creating this self fulfilling prophecy. What we need is a new spirituality which reverences the creator by honoring his masterpiece- what we have now is the total opposite.
Not all churches--mine prays for guidance for "the right use of creation" in the liturgy just about every week.
I agree with you, though. Too many Christians are more worried about what everyone else is doing or arguing over exactly what a ten-word bible verse REALLY means than about caring for the natural world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
