Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Why are Christians Often Anti-environment?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 251-275 of 1123 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 5:32:47 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 27, 2012 5:33:45 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
"How did human beings get here?"

They evolved from earlier primates, of course.

http://bcrc.bio.umass.edu/courses/fall2006/biol/biol597l/1987Cann.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2155828
http://www.pnas.org/content/85/16/6002.short
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/4621.html

By the way, did you know there's an entire Amazon forum devoted to evolution? Check it out for lots more evidence.
http://www.amazon.com/forum/evolution?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx3026SUV1GMAPD&ref_=cm_cd_cg_ef_sap&displayType=tagsDetail

Not to mention these excellent books full of clear, empirical evidence:
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

Note that these articles and books are not collections of opinion, speculation, or ill-informed politically-driven attacks: they are presentations of objective, physical EVIDENCE clearly demonstrating the reality of evolution, including human evolution. Enjoy!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 9:15:45 AM PDT
BC -- these articles and books are not collections of opinion, speculation, or ill-informed politically-driven attacks.

How do you know?

BC -- they are presentations of objective, physical EVIDENCE

How do you know they are objective?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 9:26:49 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Jeremy, are you actually unfamiliar with the concept of objective evidence?

Have you ever seen a courtroom trial--even a TV version? The witness who says "I just KNOW he stole the car" is not credible. The witness who shows a photo of the suspect actually stealing the car, however, is.

Objective means "independent of the observer." If you say the earth is flat, you're objectively wrong, because all physical evidence shows it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 10:44:25 AM PDT
David Garner says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 10:53:18 AM PDT
David Garner says:
Mark Hornberger--if "the evidence for evolution is massive and overwhelming," how about you just give us just one piece which proves it. And please, during your discussion be sure to tell us how humans got here. Were humans BORN from non-humans....or were they TRANSFORMED into humans from non-humans?

P.S. It's interesting you said "science doesn't deal with proof, but with INFERENCE from evidence." That's exactly my point: origins are not a matter of "science," they are in the realm of "philosophy"....and philosophy does deal with proof. And let me add this: there is NO proof for evolution.

Regards,

David

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 10:57:01 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2012 11:08:15 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 27, 2012 11:10:06 AM PDT
David Garner says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Jun 27, 2012 1:27:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 27, 2012 3:11:40 PM PDT
J. Russell says:
Why are Christians so often anti envirenment?
Well let me quote James Watt former Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan

We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand.

According to that point of view, environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming Apocalypse.

Tune in to any of America's 2,000 Christian radio stations or 250 Christian TV stations and you're likely to get a heavy dose of End-Time doctrine.
They say that the social and environmental crises of our times are signs of the Rapture, when born-again Christians, living and dead, will be taken up into heaven. In effect they are saying why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the Apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the Rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a Word?

Don't Worry, Be Happy.

or maybe in the words of the immortal Alfred E Newman

What me worry?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 2:16:04 AM PDT
Acts5v29 says:
Good morning J Russell,

===
We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand.

According to that point of view, environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed - even hastened - as a sign of the coming Apocalypse.

Tune in to any of America's 2,000 Christian radio stations or 250 Christian TV stations and you're likely to get a heavy dose of End-Time doctrine.
They say that the social and environmental crises of our times are signs of the Rapture, when born-again Christians, living and dead, will be taken up into heaven. In effect they are saying why care about the earth when the droughts, floods, and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the Apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the Rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a Word?
===

That is all so closed-minded - a lateral form of climate-change denial. It isn't a Divine scourge to make the unbelievers tremble, and while it is undoubtedly a nemesis to us, people would still cycle and recycle and switch off power sockets to show they care about the planet. I think - secretly - that a lot of those "saved born-againers" will feel frightened into doing so as well, whatever their rhetoric.

Posted on Jun 28, 2012 2:18:47 AM PDT
Acts5v29 says:
P.S. Found this link on James Watt
http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j33/recycle.asp

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 4:06:22 AM PDT
Bubba says:
In my post, which was a reply to your post, I indicated that the reader of the book either accepted evolution or didn't. Neither I nor the book offered an explanation why evolution is true. I do not "defend" or explain why evolution is true for exactly the same reason that I do not "defend" that the earth is an oblate spheroid.

Posted on Jun 28, 2012 5:22:29 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Predictably, the deniers refuse to look at the evidence and then demand more. Sigh.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 8:31:01 AM PDT
J. Russell says:
Acts5 verse 29 says
I think - secretly - that a lot of those "saved born-againers" will feel frightened into doing so as well, whatever their rhetoric.

My Response
One can only hope

Posted on Jun 28, 2012 11:29:52 AM PDT
K. MCCAY says:
Please, let's try to keep try our posts limited to the subject at hand which is the environment, and not evolution. Evolution, while an interesting subject for discussion, is simply not the subject of this thread.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 12:22:09 PM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Agreed.

And, as noted, there's already an entire forum devoted to it:
http://www.amazon.com/forum/evolution?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx3026SUV1GMAPD&ref_=cm_cd_cg_ef_sap&displayType=tagsDetail

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 1:14:38 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 2:33:00 PM PDT
Tim Butler says:
Bubba,
"When health and support groups in the gay community were beginning to initiate education and prevention programs, they were denied federal funding. In October 1987 Senator Helms amended a federal appropriations bill to prohibit AIDS education efforts that "encourage or promote homosexual activity" - that is, efforts that tell gay men how to have safe sex."

What exactly is this "safe sex?" Supposedly putting a thin sheet of rubber on one's genital makes them safe from a disease? Thinking persons know this is not the way to protect against STD since the only way to make disease transmission impossible is to not have contact with the disease even if this precludes sexual contact . We are not born with an STD and if we don't want one then we should choose a virgin as our spouse. I realize this sounds strange but it is a traditional taboo that has only recently been relegated to an outdated and antiquated way of thinking. Yet it remains an unchanging and logical truth that we cannot contract a disease from someone who has none. And once we've chosen that special person who has waited for us we should remain faithful to them throughout our whole life. A piece of rubber cannot protect one but actually encourages the poor thinking our society now manifests with it's any sexual behavior is good mindset.

The reason homosexual activists reject sexual abstinence is the same as heterosexuals. Instead of having children they desire pleasure to be the primary reason for sexual contact. Promiscuousity becomes rampant when sexual pleasure becomes a society's god. Our culture today wants no limits on sexual acts and so it treats children as disease using euphemisms like "unwanted child" as slogans to drive thinking toward an anything goes mentality.

So my question is why should we fund homosexual advocates with public money when they are intent on teaching not only an unnatural behavior but intend for it to be without limit? Why should I choose an educator who in putting a condom on a bananna encourages young impressionable children to engage in sexual intercourse outside of marriage and even before they are of the age of responsibility? Why shouldn't I insist all children be educated in chastity (not be simply abstinent) which teaches them they are responsible for their own choices. Chastity applies prior to and after marriage meaning one should act in a manner appropiate to their state in life. If not married refrain from sexual activity, especially intercourse; if married do not deny your duty to your spouse and refrain only when you intend to space children (NFP).

Why should I agree with radicals who view human procreation as unimportant and irrelevant to our sexual nature? Why should I allow these radicals to impose their view on myself and others in society? They do so by force of law when they attempt to redefine the very nature of marriage as being between a man and woman. This is what the Christian Church as always taught and will continue to teach. Note here that the Church does not impose it's view on anyone since it does not make or enforce civil law, rather it proposes what is true about human sexuality and civil law makers decide what they will accept from these truths. Civil authorities write the laws that in turn force us to some degree to conform to a standard of predetermined behavior. We The People vote in those whom we want to represent us and they make the law according to the majority opinion. Of course there are some laws that even the majority cannot change as listed by our Declaration of Independence and protected by our Constitution. Anything that interfers with our "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" would be unlawful and as such no law can be validly enacted to support contraception, homosexuality or abortion since they either seek to interfere with the generation of life or end an already existing life. In other words they deny authentic human love it's fruits. Our government therefore has no business supporting any of these activities or behaviors. In-as-much as they do they unravel the fabric of love and life that holds our society together. 062812 Ratjaws@aol.com

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 2:23:23 PM PDT
Tim Butler says:
Brent McCay,
"Agreed. Without God being physically here to explain reality to us, we are left with only religious texts which are vague, written in dead languages (which have words we are unsure of how to even translate properly), contradictory, and subject to varied interpretation. This is not a very assuring way, to me, of determining reality."

I'm afraid the only thing that is dead here is your understanding of what the Christian Church teaches in relation to Herself and how the She interacts with society.

First this idea that the language of the Church is dead is a fiction generated by those who hate religion. Latin still has the same vitality it had when it was popular. The only way I can agree that it is dead is that the common man does not use it in every day conversation as was once the case. Latin still undergirds scientific language and medical science and law in particular. You cannot be educated in these fields without some knowledge of Latin and other "unused" languages.

Second, religious texts are far from vague, rather they have very vibrant meaning. That you don't see this shows you are a product of an educational system that has lost a lot of it's vibrancy. The Church teaches that God is physically here and with your Christian background you should recognize this in the "body and blood of Christ." It's not merely a symbol or metaphor. It is literal! We believe Christ is truly present in what we call the Eucharist. Now if you deny this then you merely prove yourself to be dead because only a living being can have knowledge of another living being. Dead "life" can no longer know. This applies to all other tenets of the Church as they are related to "faith and morals." There is nothing vague about them and they are packed with meaning if only one has the "eyes to see..." and "the ears to hear..." and of course the right teacher... one who already knows and understands the truths of the Christian faith... Think for a moment, can a person not educated in horticulture teach horticulture?

Third, sure we have to translate and interpret them. How can this be a problem except if we don't recognize any authority to teach. Here lies one of the problems that infects all of Protestantism... that they (like Muslims) have no central authority visible here on earth to determine what revelation (written and oral) mean. And note here, that word authority, it's root to author, comes from the Latin, auctor, enlarger, originator, <augere, to increase. So this dead word we use all the time (I should say misuse in only a negative sense that damns all authority) is really filled with meaning and implies an authority is one who helps to increase an understanding or some other good such as law or order within a society. The Church Christ instituted has a central authority appointed by Him who does just this... that is to increase the number of people in the world who know what Christ actually taught. The true meaning of Christianity has not been lost... just neglected to be taught by some and distorted by others.

We have those who translate from one language to another... then we have those who interpret the meaning given to words in whatever language they are working in. Neither is dispensable in the very important task of communication and neither has to be the source of ambiguity as Mark Hornberger or you imply. The two of you erect a strawman in order to knock him down. What you need to know is that those who wrote the bible were interested in God and man in context of "faith and morals" ...period! They never intended to determine the nature of a quantum particle. Nor did they write a book of science to explain how the world began or how many days it took for God to create. This is all a heretical view called concordism and is promulgated by Protestants who have detached themselves from Church authority, and so, they muddy the water of what sacred scripture really means and teaches us. This bible you put down and the people who use it can only give us a set of fundamental principles from which to judge reality within the framework of "faith and morals;" and in relation to our subject here, as to how moral principle applies to climatology. This is in great part what I've been trying to get across to you when I say we cannot prevent human beings from coming into this world (or kill them) in order to save our environment (assuming it needs saving). Therefore those books in the one called biblia (Latin) are necessary to our understanding of science and climate change from the narrow perspective of "faith and morals." 062812 Ratjaws@aol.com

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 2:28:56 PM PDT
ErikR says:
"Why should I agree with radicals who view human procreation as unimportant and irrelevant to our sexual nature?"

It seems like quite a large, unjustified link to go from "some people view sex as pleasurable and therefore engage in it" to "...therefore they view human procreation as unimportant." It appears to me that you are reading a large measure of your own bias into your views of other people's thoughts and motivations.

"Why should I allow these radicals to impose their view on myself and others in society?"

When these "radicals" force you to have non-procreative sex and to marry someone of the same gender then your complaint will be justified, otherwise, how does what other people do impose their views on you?

Posted on Jun 28, 2012 3:51:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 7:20:49 PM PDT
K. MCCAY says:
Mr. Butler,

I will not respond fully to your post, because its content does not really address what this thread is about. I will quickly say that the Bible is not written in Latin. The New Testament was originally written in koine Greek (no longer a spoken language i.e. dead). Which gives biblical linguists struggles because there are words in koine Greek which they simply do not know how to translate. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew (no longer spoken: a dead language). Since I took four semesters of New Testament koine Greek in college on my way to getting a ministry degree, I would wager that I am pretty well versed in the subject. The Bible is very vague at points. I have read the book through in its entirety over fifty different times and have read the new testament well over 200 times. The vagueness of the book and the fact that it is so open for interpretation is much of what causes debate and in-fighting even among those who claim to be Christian.

This is the last I will address this topic here though, because it is not what this thread is about. We are here to discuss the environment, and why many religious people tend to not back changes to help the environment.

Brent McCay

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 4:35:29 PM PDT
Bubba says:
I am not going to answer your slanders, other than to say that safe sex is more than just condoms.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 5:00:16 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 5:19:48 PM PDT
Tim Butler says:
Coco Butter,
You selectively exaggerate and deemphasize what you want. In the first place we don't need to sacralize nature in order to protect it any more than we need to declare our house or car sacred to protect them. Nor do we need to invest non-rational nature or inanimate nature with intelligence in order to protect it. What we do need is to use the intellect we have to recognize that human beings are sacred because of our intelligence which is unique to humans alone. With that intellect we also recognize there is an order to non-intellectually cognitive nature with animals being at the top by possession of their sense cognition and locomotion, plants next because they are vegetative life, and the rest of inanimate beings at the bottom.

Now just as I value my home or car and protect it with my money, time and other resources, I can also value gold, copper, or any other non-living element in nature. I assign protection to these things based on their value which is based on their nature. I don't consider even a diamond more important than my pet cat. Likewise for the grass on my lawn and flowers in my beds, I water and feed them because their intrinsic value to me includes their beauty as well as they give off oxygen that I need to breath. Animals I not only value for food and clothing but again because of their beauty and because I realize they are sentient beings that are much like me. Yet I also realize they are not exactly like me! While I possess vegetative appetite and sense cognition, my nature includes intellectual cognition that sets me far above the rest of this kingdom.

If I don't use my intellect to think through these ideas that correspond to certain aspects of reality around me then I am not being true to my nature. And if I mistreat the rest of nature because I am "better" (as you falsely accuse) then I am also not being true to my unique nature. I don't torture animals and I would prevent any person around me from doing so if within my power because I have this intelligence that says its wrong. Yet I refuse to give up my unique nature because someone like you has a skewed idea of what each of these being's natures are. I reject your notion that animals are intelligent and I would stop you from ever hurting my cats. I also reject this idea that if we don't grant animals "rights" then we can't protect them. I can and do see the value of each being according to their particular nature and I insist they be treated according to that nature which is unique to them. I don't have to hug trees to do this as you imply.

As for connecting to nature, I don't need to have sex with my cats to be in union with them. I can have sexual union with another being that is intelligent like me but never one of a nature lower than me. I don't need to humanize the rest of nature to connect with it nor do I have to dehumanize myself. Whenever I interact with another being... a cat, a flower, or even a rock, I do so according to what they are. As I hold a rock in my hand or throw it I am in union with it. As I smell a rose, admire it's beauty and water it I am being in union with it. As I play with my cats, talk to them, pet and feed them I am in union with them according to their lower natures. I can also use these beings in other ways that serve my needs which is not a violation of their nature. I can build a house with rocks or use them in a slingshot as a weapon. I can use plants to heal my self or ingest for food. Likewise for non-domestic animals which I can use for food and clothing and to some degree as a means to find new medicines or cures for ailments that both animals and humans have. You may call this an evil but I say your view of evil is twisted if you consider humans as essentially the same as the rest of the animal kingdom. Worse if you consider plants and animals possessing the same "rights" as persons. There is an infinite difference between human beings and the rest of material nature that cannot be lost or we end up missing the dignity and beauty of each of these unique creatures as they exist in their proper place and order. 062812 Ratjaws@aol.com

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 5:08:13 PM PDT
Tim Butler says:
EXACTLY!!!
Finally someone on your side admits it!

Posted on Jun 28, 2012 5:19:25 PM PDT
The base of the idiocy in regard as to why many Christian conservatives do not support protecting life on the Earth is as follows:

Only humans have souls, and only they can live forever. God provided the Earth for them to "use" before they go to heaven. Also, using the Earth is great for businesses and political leaders, who can use Christians like pigs with ring in their noses.

Christians do not have the human decency of the animists in the primeval, paleolithic Stone Age. As humans on the Earth, Christians are incredibly lacking.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 6:10:13 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 6:18:21 PM PDT
Tim Butler says:
Brent McCay,
With all due respect these points were brought up in the discussion and they are pertinent to this discussion precisely because it is about, in your words: "Why are Christians Often Anti-environment?" We Christians get accused of many things and this idea that we live by a book is just one of them. Sadly it's not just that we rely on the bible, rather as is being said here it is "only religious texts which are vague, written in dead languages (which have words we are unsure of how to even translate properly), contradictory, and subject to varied interpretation," again in words you outwardly said you agreed with. And again as you say "This is not a very assuring way, to me, of determining reality." So you are attacking our basis for judging the same reality you must judge although you choose to do so without the bible.

Now, as you should well know I am not a fundamentalist who says I must go by the bible, meaning I must take it literally word for word. Instead I pull principles from it that are based in reality and as such they help keep me on the straight and narrow when making judgments. Therefore, and because I value these principles, I insist the bible is NOT what you and the one you said these things to, said it is. It is not vague, not written in languages that are insignificant, does not contradict itself, nor is it uninterpretable!

With this said I apologize for misunderstanding what you were refering to language wise. I assumed Latin because for most of Christian history the bible has been presented in Latin and not its original languages. Still what I've said about language holds true in that the Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew are not vague or dead (in any negative sense) or uninterpretable in any way. And again I emphasize that whatever vagueness you've experienced comes from the fact that some have given up on authority, and, by declaring this subject off topic you simply show you are unwilling (or unable) to discuss all the areas that are pertinent to your subject of Christianity and the environment. In fact it was not me who brought this aspect up but it is I, even if no one else, who will defend the truth of it.

That you've read the bible through many times is great... I have too! This is why I am not afraid to quote or discuss scripture. At the same time I defer my judgment to that of the Church when it comes to ultimate meanings in relation to the bible. She wrote it! ...not you or me. Evidently you don't and this is why you've come to the mistaken conclusion the bible is "only religious texts which are vague, written in dead languages (which have words we are unsure of how to even translate properly), contradictory, and subject to varied interpretation." It's why people make silly comments in this discussion on the enviroment about Christians not being worried about it because they will be "Raptured" to glory. The truth is they will be "caught up" but it will be for judgment and I'm sure God will ask them what did you do to the world I gave you, as well as other more pressing questions like did you take my gospel of life to others? In fact, Brent, this is what the term evangelize means... the gospel of life, gospel meaning good news... the good news about life. In all your studies did you learn this? If so then why are you not as concerned about embryonic persons living in their mother's womb as you are about adult persons living in the overall environment? I think you've missed something very important here and this is inconsistent. It's certainly not Christian teaching because the Church refuses to let go of Her antiquated ideas that murder is wrong all the time... whether it be of a person in the womb or millions of persons living in nature. It seems to me the vagueness resides on your side that insists on raw data fed into computers. To me this is your bible. And speaking of dead languages you trust this lifeless silicone based machine to direct your decisions while us naive technologically uninformed Christians trust a book that is said to be the living Word of God. Do you recall the book of John 1:1-3 & 14?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

But No... that's too vague! It's unclear here what is being said even after reading the bible some fifty times. Is this what you are saying to me? Anyhow change the topic of this thread to whatever you want but don't hide behind these vague accusations that you may not have said yourself but you did "agree" with. And for the record that debate and in-fighting within Christianity is caused primarily by Christians who reject Christ's Church as the final authority. It would seem to me that we need an "ecclesia authority" within the environmental movement in order to avert debate and in-fighting there too... don't you agree? 062812 Ratjaws@aol.com

Posted on Jun 28, 2012 8:40:24 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 29, 2012 2:28:54 PM PDT
K. MCCAY says:
Mr. Butler,

I purposefully chose not to delve in-depth into your post addressing Christian scriptures. I am not "unable" to have such discussions as you somewhat rudely asserted. Also, I am not trying to avoid the subject. I simply realize how quickly the purpose of this thread can become lost if we begin debating the relevancy of Christian Scriptures (or any other scriptures for that matter). I have tried to steer the conversation here back to the topic at hand several times. My intention is none other than to make sure we all stay on topic.

It would be very easy for me to begin a debate with you (and I am having a very hard time not beginning a debate with you) over many of the things which you have stated. I simply will not. I have no desire to become rude or even to attack Christianity or any particular branch of Christianity. I have absolutely no problem with people having faith, or even following and reading the Bible. I never said that the entire Bible is vague. I said parts of it are. Even "Christ's Church" (i.e. Catholic Church) has changed its beliefs and interpretations of different scriptures many times throughout history and there have been debates even within the Catholic Church about certain scriptures. I never said that Latin, koine Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew are not valuable, worthwhile, or beautiful languages. By saying they are "dead". I am simply using a word which scholars use to describe languages which are not spoken anymore. As a result of these languages not being spoken anymore some of the words have been lost to us and we do not know exactly what they mean anymore. There are words in the original texts of the Bible which scholars do not know exactly what they mean. So, parts of the Bible are definitely confusing because some of the words have simply been lost to us.

You assume much about me, but you do not really know anything about me. You have stated that I am in favor of abortion and that my care for the environment is "inconsistent" because I support the murder of children en utero. I have said before that I will not address the subject of abortion here. I will simply say that I do not agree with either Democrats or Republicans when it comes to the subject of abortion, and that I am very much concerned with all life on this planet. I believe very much in the sanctity of life. I do not find my beliefs to be inconsistent. You assume my beliefs are inconsistent, but as I have pointed out, you do not know my beliefs on abortion or on very many other issues except for the environment. Please stop assuming you know me.

I am not saying that scriptures are not worthwhile. I actually believe that the Christian scriptures have many wonderful and beautiful truths contained within them (especially in the teachings of Jesus). I still let many of the teachings of Jesus guide me in my day-to-day life and decisions. I also let other things like logic, common sense, and science guide me as well. I never said "all of the scriptures are vague", but that parts of the scriptures are vague. Since you are not a "fundamentalist" and do not interpret all of the Bible literally you are in a much better position to use the scriptures in a healthy and productive way in your life.

I agreed with the statement which was made about the vagueness and inconsistencies of scripture, because there are many fundamentalists out there who want to take a literal approach to the Christian scriptures. Trying to literally interpret and follow the scriptures does create many issues and problems and I think this literal interpretation is at the heart of why many fundamentalist Christians take such a cavalier attitude toward the Earth and changes which are occurring on our planet.

I simply do not understand what is so wrong with seeing that there is a problem with our planet, that we as people are almost certainly a major part of the problem, and trying to begin as individuals to make some changes in order to help reduce our carbon footprint. Why be so concerned with saving babies and then take such a calloused approach to the planet and future we are leaving those children whom they are trying to save? I have absolutely no problem with people being pro-choice. I simply want people, no matter what they believe about other issues, to start giving a damn about the future of our planet. I want people to care about what ecological problems we are leaving for ourselves, our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren.

Brent McCay
‹ Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 45 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  70
Total posts:  1123
Initial post:  Jun 14, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 29, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions