Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 22:09:22 GMT -5
Seems God is going green. For all the warnings in the bible, not one mention about the long term perils of carbon pollution. And it's not for want of knowing about the future - there are all sorts of references to the fall of Christianity, the return of the Jews to Israel etc.. Maybe the bible didn't care. Or more likely, maybe the bible thought global warming, like thousands of other issues, was not religion's remit? Nor, for that matter, was the billions these churches own. www.newscientist.com/article/dn25903-church-takes-important-longterm-view-on-fossil-fuel.html#.U8c86rHGZ-M
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 16, 2014 22:16:01 GMT -5
Well Bert. I have had some Christians tell me that we don't have to worry about global warming because the rapture is going to be soon. Then God will make earth into a paradise again. So we can trash it all we like and he will just fix it! One more reason I think some religious thought is dangerous for the rest of us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 22:24:29 GMT -5
I for one hold this trash-the-earth / rapture scenario offensive. Again, I don't believe it's religion's remit to get involved in earthly issues. What religion ought to give you is common sense and "Christian" behavior. When you see campaigns,for instance, to teach young boys at school not to sexualize girls, then you see the symptoms of the breakdown of what was considered Christian behavior. The bible never mentioned children sexualizing one another, but like polluting our neighbor, it is implicit in its description of good living.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 16, 2014 22:36:39 GMT -5
I for one hold this trash-the-earth / rapture scenario offensive. Again, I don't believe it's religion's remit to get involved in earthly issues. What religion ought to give you is common sense and "Christian" behavior. When you see campaigns,for instance, to teach young boys at school not to sexualize girls, then you see the symptoms of the breakdown of what was considered Christian behavior. The bible never mentioned children sexualizing one another, but like polluting our neighbor, it is implicit in its description of good living. OMG, what is "sexualizing" someone?!
God, I must be really out of the loop!
I'm trying my darnist to keep up with this zany new world, but I sure don't know what that means!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 22:42:47 GMT -5
We older folk often wondered what a "Godless" or non-Christian world would look like. When I see "progams" like the one I mentioned I guess that is this is the non-religious world appearing.
"Sexualizing" ... Sexualization (or sexualisation) is to make something sexual in character or quality, or to become aware of sexuality,especially in relation to men and women."
... and now, boys and girls.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 16, 2014 23:03:29 GMT -5
I for one hold this trash-the-earth / rapture scenario offensive. Again, I don't believe it's religion's remit to get involved in earthly issues. What religion ought to give you is common sense and "Christian" behavior. When you see campaigns,for instance, to teach young boys at school not to sexualize girls, then you see the symptoms of the breakdown of what was considered Christian behavior. The bible never mentioned children sexualizing one another, but like polluting our neighbor, it is implicit in its description of good living. Being taught to NOT' sexualize' girls is not a bad thing Bert. Women have been chattel and possessions and also sexual objects in the form of beauty contests etc. To teach boys or men to not look at women as a sexual object is not a bad thing, is it?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 16, 2014 23:03:48 GMT -5
I thought the Green God was really the Green "Goddess"
I see people all over this God's Green Earth worshiping the Green Goddess everyday, day in & day out.
All over town I hear their lamentations. These days the have machines to do their moaning & groaning to placate her.
The oil they burn to her in sacrifice goes in those machines is purchased at great price from foreign lands in the sands of the East. No costly frankincense & myrrh for them, just oil at a cost in lives as well as money
Yes, LAWN is her name and we bow & mow to her all the time.
I have been trying to get out of her clutches by having more & more of LAWN let grow with prairie grass & wild flowers, but it isn't easy to be an ALAWNIST!
My neighbors complain, afraid that their own LAWN might become contaminated. I fear the day will come when they gang up on me with their mowers,& trimmers, & scythes. Alas, I must just sit and await my destiny whatever it may be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 1:48:38 GMT -5
I for one hold this trash-the-earth / rapture scenario offensive. Again, I don't believe it's religion's remit to get involved in earthly issues. What religion ought to give you is common sense and "Christian" behavior.
When you see campaigns,for instance, to teach young boys at school not to sexualize girls, then you see the symptoms of the breakdown of what was considered Christian behavior. The bible never mentioned children sexualizing one another, but like polluting our neighbor, it is implicit in its description of good living. Why is this not 'religion's remit'? Christianity seems to focused on human to human relationships but plenty of religions in the past have included the human environment relationship, even centered around it. I'm inclined to think for humans to find some harmonious balance on the earth it will require religion/spirituality that includes the human nature relationship.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 8:45:01 GMT -5
Let's imagine you go to your local church on a Sunday. The preacher talks about "global warming."
How long? Half an hour? Let's say ten minutes. It's a complex subject.
But wait... someone feels it is offensive that carbon taxes are forcing the poor and elderly to go cold or hungry. So our preacher gets bogged down in that, too.
And someone shouts, "What about fracking?" "Can't we go nuclear?" replies another. And what about the war in Gaza? Doesn't anyone care anymore about the poor Palestinians?
You could come out of that church fifteen years later, having not had the time to hear even a verse of scripture.
I would like to think that a church teaches us to be God fearing people who would by nature have responsibilities to our society, and be good examples. No need to talk about the demon drink, gambling or carbon pollution - its all implied.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 17, 2014 10:21:23 GMT -5
Let's imagine you go to your local church on a Sunday. The preacher talks about "global warming." How long? Half an hour? Let's say ten minutes. It's a complex subject. But wait... someone feels it is offensive that carbon taxes are forcing the poor and elderly to go cold or hungry. So our preacher gets bogged down in that, too. And someone shouts, "What about fracking?" "Can't we go nuclear?" replies another. And what about the war in Gaza? Doesn't anyone care anymore about the poor Palestinians? You could come out of that church fifteen years later, having not had the time to hear even a verse of scripture. I would like to think that a church teaches us to be God fearing people who would by nature responsibilities to our society, and be good examples. No need to talk about the demon drink, gambling or carbon pollution - its all implied. I would like to think that a church teaches us to be God fearing people who would by nature responsibilities to our society, and be good examples. No need to talk about the demon drink, gambling or carbon pollution - its all implied.Really? Implied in what manner? What is 'demon drink'? The wine Jesus made? What is 'gambling'? You mean like when they cast lots to determine a course of action in the bible? I think it is well presented in scripture that we have a responsibility to those around us (believers or not), and the importance of taking care of the environment that we live. A church doesn't have to get bogged down in discussing concerns in the world we live in, but I don't think that there is a problem with discussing those concerns.
|
|
|
Post by uker260702 on Jul 17, 2014 13:53:52 GMT -5
I for one hold this trash-the-earth / rapture scenario offensive. Again, I don't believe it's religion's remit to get involved in earthly issues. What religion ought to give you is common sense and "Christian" behavior. Would these count as earthly issues? www.jewfaq.org/613.htmSome might seem to be common sense, others maybe not so much
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 17, 2014 14:01:47 GMT -5
I for one hold this trash-the-earth / rapture scenario offensive. Again, I don't believe it's religion's remit to get involved in earthly issues. What religion ought to give you is common sense and "Christian" behavior. Would these count as earthly issues? www.jewfaq.org/613.htmSome might seem to be common sense, others maybe not so much That's quite the list of do's and don'ts. When would you learn all of them? Would you adhere to all of them I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 17, 2014 14:39:03 GMT -5
I for one hold this trash-the-earth / rapture scenario offensive. Again, I don't believe it's religion's remit to get involved in earthly issues. What religion ought to give you is common sense and "Christian" behavior. When you see campaigns,for instance, to teach young boys at school not to sexualize girls, then you see the symptoms of the breakdown of what was considered Christian behavior. The bible never mentioned children sexualizing one another, but like polluting our neighbor, it is implicit in its description of good living. And I don't think any church is worth the land it sits on or the building it occupies unless that church IS involved in earthly issues!
Earthly issues concern the welfare of all people on the earth and therefore if indeed that church is going to follow the second commandment, to love others as they love themselves, then they MUST be concerned about "earthly issues"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 18:02:28 GMT -5
You are quite right. Is any church "worth the land it sits on"?
Lots of social issues in Jesus' day - poverty, hunger, disease, borders, Roman occupation, religious strife etc etc etc.. Read Mathew's "Sermon on the Mount" and take in what issues He alone was interested in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 18:27:49 GMT -5
it says were to conquer and have dominion over the things of the earth it doesn't say to trash them...
Gen_1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Gen_1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 17, 2014 18:41:52 GMT -5
I was thinking the same wally. I was also thinking... In the beginning God created the heaven and earth...... the Bible starts with God creating the heaven and earth........Gen 1:1
Our body is the temple of God, what is the earth? Nothing? I thought earth was God's footstool. God was also very interested in people's diseases. He went everywhere healing sickness and disease. He told the apostles too as well. So, wrong again Bert!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 20:02:22 GMT -5
it says were to conquer and have dominion over the things of the earth it doesn't say to trash them... Gen_1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Gen_1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. I read seperation: god, humankind and earth/other living things. Overall the Christian religion has focused on the human-God and human-human relationships as being important in a spiritual sense, the human-nature relationship has no consequence to eternal life. The focus on the human-nature relationship in the broader community, particularly media and education, may be leading people to place that relationship on a par with the human-human relationship. In other words people want to, and do feel good about, say, recycling their trash as they do about helping their neighbours. Doesn't surprise me that the church might seek to incorprate these values. I tend to agree with Bert though, it's not really what Christianity is about. Different story for other religions, belief systems.
|
|
|
Post by openingact34 on Jul 17, 2014 20:11:24 GMT -5
Let's imagine you go to your local church on a Sunday. The preacher talks about "global warming." How long? Half an hour? Let's say ten minutes. It's a complex subject. But wait... someone feels it is offensive that carbon taxes are forcing the poor and elderly to go cold or hungry. So our preacher gets bogged down in that, too. And someone shouts, "What about fracking?" "Can't we go nuclear?" replies another. And what about the war in Gaza? Doesn't anyone care anymore about the poor Palestinians? You could come out of that church fifteen years later, having not had the time to hear even a verse of scripture. I would like to think that a church teaches us to be God fearing people who would by nature have responsibilities to our society, and be good examples. No need to talk about the demon drink, gambling or carbon pollution - its all implied. And how about the ecologically relevant influences that churches have imposed for centuries? With a global population well over 7 billion people, is there any practical limit to "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth"? Particularly in areas of Africa, etc where the carrying capacity is being tested? Imagine you are in an annual church retreat. The speaker decries the small family sizes of the church members. He reminds them that the church has a dire need for more ministers. Those couples who have a small family or don't have children are derided for "living selfishly for the things of this world" and "not sacrificing". Or imagine being mired in poverty yet indoctrinated into a widespread religion where any contraception is viewed as a "violation of God's law" and "intrinsically evil".
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 17, 2014 20:18:47 GMT -5
Let's imagine you go to your local church on a Sunday. The preacher talks about "global warming." How long? Half an hour? Let's say ten minutes. It's a complex subject. But wait... someone feels it is offensive that carbon taxes are forcing the poor and elderly to go cold or hungry. So our preacher gets bogged down in that, too. And someone shouts, "What about fracking?" "Can't we go nuclear?" replies another. And what about the war in Gaza? Doesn't anyone care anymore about the poor Palestinians? You could come out of that church fifteen years later, having not had the time to hear even a verse of scripture. I would like to think that a church teaches us to be God fearing people who would by nature have responsibilities to our society, and be good examples. No need to talk about the demon drink, gambling or carbon pollution - its all implied. And how about the ecologically relevant influences that churches have imposed for centuries? With a global population well over 7 billion people, is there any practical limit to "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth"? Particularly in areas of Africa, etc where the carrying capacity is being tested? Imagine you are in an annual church retreat. The speaker decries the small family sizes of the church members. He reminds them that the church has a dire need for more ministers. Those couples who have a small family or don't have children are derided for "living selfishly for the things of this world" and "not sacrificing". Or imagine being mired in poverty yet indoctrinated into a widespread religion where any contraception is viewed as a "violation of God's law" and "intrinsically evil". There is that aspect of it. The larger families are becoming a trend again within the more conservative religious groups. I don't really understand how using contraception is a sin but it seems to be.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 17, 2014 21:46:10 GMT -5
And how about the ecologically relevant influences that churches have imposed for centuries? With a global population well over 7 billion people, is there any practical limit to "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth"? Particularly in areas of Africa, etc where the carrying capacity is being tested? Imagine you are in an annual church retreat. The speaker decries the small family sizes of the church members. He reminds them that the church has a dire need for more ministers. Those couples who have a small family or don't have children are derided for "living selfishly for the things of this world" and "not sacrificing". Or imagine being mired in poverty yet indoctrinated into a widespread religion where any contraception is viewed as a "violation of God's law" and "intrinsically evil". There is that aspect of it. The larger families are becoming a trend again within the more conservative religious groups. I don't really understand how using contraception is a sin but it seems to be. Actually the word "sin" & the interpretation of what is meant by the word are different according to different religions.
I personally don't like the word. Humans make errors and for various reasons. Some errors are indeed terrible, others less so, but the implication in the use of the word "sin" is used as a religious term and used to control people.
For me, the word isn't in usage in my vocabulary.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 17, 2014 22:09:47 GMT -5
There is that aspect of it. The larger families are becoming a trend again within the more conservative religious groups. I don't really understand how using contraception is a sin but it seems to be. Actually the word "sin" & the interpretation of what is meant by the word are different according to different religions.
I personally don't like the word. Humans make errors and for various reasons. Some errors are indeed terrible, others less so, but the implication in the use of the word "sin" is used as a religious term and used to control people.
For me, the word isn't in usage in my vocabulary. I agree with that. It is used to control. I'm like you and just see people making mistakes, sometimes drastic ones.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 18, 2014 0:29:38 GMT -5
I thought the Green God was really the Green "Goddess"
I see people all over this God's Green Earth worshiping the Green Goddess everyday, day in & day out.
All over town I hear their lamentations. These days the have machines to do their moaning & groaning to placate her.
The oil they burn to her in sacrifice goes in those machines is purchased at great price from foreign lands in the sands of the East. No costly frankincense & myrrh for them, just oil at a cost in lives as well as money
Yes, LAWN is her name and we bow & mow to her all the time.
I have been trying to get out of her clutches by having more & more of LAWN let grow with prairie grass & wild flowers, but it isn't easy to be an ALAWNIST!
My neighbors complain, afraid that their own LAWN might become contaminated. I fear the day will come when they gang up on me with their mowers,& trimmers, & scythes. Alas, I must just sit and await my destiny whatever it may be. Dmmichgood ~ Glad to see you still have your sense of humor by your witty remarks above!
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jul 18, 2014 6:55:35 GMT -5
And how about the ecologically relevant influences that churches have imposed for centuries? With a global population well over 7 billion people, is there any practical limit to "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth"? Particularly in areas of Africa, etc where the carrying capacity is being tested? Imagine you are in an annual church retreat. The speaker decries the small family sizes of the church members. He reminds them that the church has a dire need for more ministers. Those couples who have a small family or don't have children are derided for "living selfishly for the things of this world" and "not sacrificing". Or imagine being mired in poverty yet indoctrinated into a widespread religion where any contraception is viewed as a "violation of God's law" and "intrinsically evil". There is that aspect of it. The larger families are becoming a trend again within the more conservative religious groups. I don't really understand how using contraception is a sin but it seems to be. I don't get this either, however, there are those that rule out all contraceptives. And also there are some pro-lifers who claim that certain contraceptives are abortifacients because there is the possibility that they "may prevent a fertilised egg from implantation". They claim this despite the fact that these contraceptives work primarily by preventing ovulation in the first place. Scare tactics if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 18, 2014 10:33:36 GMT -5
There is that aspect of it. The larger families are becoming a trend again within the more conservative religious groups. I don't really understand how using contraception is a sin but it seems to be. I don't get this either, however, there are those that rule out all contraceptives. And also there are some pro-lifers who claim that certain contraceptives are abortifacients because there is the possibility that they "may prevent a fertilised egg from implantation". They claim this despite the fact that these contraceptives work primarily by preventing ovulation in the first place. Scare tactics if you ask me. I guess the mentality there is that if you are preventing a possibility you are playing God and that isn't allowed. But the way I see it, you are preventing a life that could be born into very horrific circumstances. I can't imagine that it is better to have been born and then starve to death before you're year old. It seems it is not about the quality of life, more the quantity of life. More members for the church means more money. I know that is cynical, but I bet there is that consideration in it all. Not by the people, because they are just doing what they are told. Believing what they have heard preached. My birth family believe that God will prevent pregnancy if he feels they have had enough children. So far it looks like he needs them to have more. Don't get me wrong, I love children and believe they are a wonderful blessing to our lives. My concern is more what happens to children that are born into families that cannot afford to raise them? Surely that needs to be a consideration?
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jul 20, 2014 5:36:04 GMT -5
I don't get this either, however, there are those that rule out all contraceptives. And also there are some pro-lifers who claim that certain contraceptives are abortifacients because there is the possibility that they "may prevent a fertilised egg from implantation". They claim this despite the fact that these contraceptives work primarily by preventing ovulation in the first place. Scare tactics if you ask me. I guess the mentality there is that if you are preventing a possibility you are playing God and that isn't allowed. But the way I see it, you are preventing a life that could be born into very horrific circumstances. I can't imagine that it is better to have been born and then starve to death before you're year old. It seems it is not about the quality of life, more the quantity of life. More members for the church means more money. I know that is cynical, but I bet there is that consideration in it all. Not by the people, because they are just doing what they are told. Believing what they have heard preached. My birth family believe that God will prevent pregnancy if he feels they have had enough children. So far it looks like he needs them to have more. Don't get me wrong, I love children and believe they are a wonderful blessing to our lives. My concern is more what happens to children that are born into families that cannot afford to raise them? Surely that needs to be a consideration? I do believe in God but I guess I don't believe that God micromanages to the level of preventing pregnancy if God feels a family already has enough children. I would probably be more inclined to believe that as we have the capacity to avoid pregnancy God would expect us to use commonsense in that regard. I don't want it to be harsh either but I can imagine circumstances like poverty or perhaps some extreme genetic disorders where the greater kindness would be to have a life or lives prevented from being conceived.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 20, 2014 13:40:54 GMT -5
it says were to conquer and have dominion over the things of the earth it doesn't say to trash them... Gen_1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Gen_1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. I read seperation: god, humankind and earth/other living things. Overall the Christian religion has focused on the human-God and human-human relationships as being important in a spiritual sense, the human-nature relationship has no consequence to eternal life. The focus on the human-nature relationship in the broader community, particularly media and education, may be leading people to place that relationship on a par with the human-human relationship. In other words people want to, and do feel good about, say, recycling their trash as they do about helping their neighbours. Doesn't surprise me that the church might seek to incorprate these values. I tend to agree with Bert though, it's not really what Christianity is about. Different story for other religions, belief systems. You're quite right. Whether modern Christians like it or not, historically Christianity has been the "hate the earth" religion --- the Devil ruled the earth and man's only hope was to escape from it. The church for centuries abhorred sanitation concerns of other religions, Jews in particular. When Jews didn't suffer so severely from the Black Plague, Christians blamed the plague on the evil works of the Jews.
|
|
|
Post by déjà vu on Jul 20, 2014 14:16:59 GMT -5
I get the impression that F&W are nor very interested in leaving a small carbon footprint. why? because they drive for miles past numerous churches to get to their meeting .
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jul 20, 2014 14:22:39 GMT -5
I for one hold this trash-the-earth / rapture scenario offensive. Again, I don't believe it's religion's remit to get involved in earthly issues. What religion ought to give you is common sense and "Christian" behavior. When you see campaigns,for instance, to teach young boys at school not to sexualize girls, then you see the symptoms of the breakdown of what was considered Christian behavior. The bible never mentioned children sexualizing one another, but like polluting our neighbor, it is implicit in its description of good living. Was the OP just a means to get to this?
|
|