Environmentalism

[olger]

We ought to have a discussion on the meaning of "destroy those who destroy the earth."

Modern environmentalists insist that this is referring to M&M wrappers in the ditch and cooper tires buried in landfills.

I believe that this extremely shallow view is a politically-driven distraction to the real meaning of the verse. The parallel event is in Genesis 6:5-7, where God says that He is going to destroy the earth (people) because it was filled with violence and wickedness.

"And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth" (Genesis 6:12-13).

Jesus said that "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man (Matthew 24). The two events are contextually bound together, and the byproduct of men in both events is wickedness that fills the earth.

Thus to claim that using Wal-Mart bags and/or burning a wood stove causes God to eventually destroy you because of His globe-value is new level of missing-the-point. It is the human heart that destroys the earth by filling it with iniquity and violence "as in the days of Noah." On that score, God is very clear. Such people will be destroyed because of their premiere byproduct. Iniquity.

rejoice always,

g

[M. T. Cross]

People in harmony with Earth is the way to go I think.

[Neil D]

We ought to have a discussion on the meaning of "destroy those who destroy the earth."

[snip]

Thus to claim that using Wal-Mart bags and/or burning a wood stove causes God to eventually destroy you because of His globe-value is new level of missing-the-point. It is the human heart that destroys the earth by filling it with iniquity and violence "as in the days of Noah." On that score, God is very clear. Such people will be destroyed because of their premiere byproduct. Iniquity.

Is that byproduct 'destroying the earth' or the heart?

[dialoguewithus]

If we take a holistic view, we will see that our present economy, based on fossil fuels, is unsustainable. We need to consider all the costs of various forms of energy, including the cost of treating disease caused by pollution, clean-up operations, military oversight of oil production and transport, etc. (Some have said that up to half the cost of gasoline is covered by taxpayers in general, rather than by prices at the pump.) Sometimes tax breaks for fossil fuels make them appear more affordable than they really are. The cost of ignoring the earth's needs and those of future generations are higher than what appears on the surface. We need to accelerate transition, even though there will be costs involved. The longer we wait, the greater those costs will turn out to be.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/01/201213108487966.html

[Naomi]

Is that byproduct 'destroying the earth' or the heart?

[phkrause]

The argument of "people over Earth" ignores that there can't be people without earth. It's a symbiotic relationship. When one turns into a parasite and kills the host, then the parasite will eventually die off too.

Environmentalism is not about choosing earth over people. It's about showing that excessive profit-motivated practices will lead to eventual harm of people themselves in the long run.

It's about balance.

Exactly

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Have you ever thought of it this way:

We are just helping out God by getting a head start on the destruction of the Earth?

I really hope it was a joke.

I second that

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Have you ever thought of it this way:

We are just helping out God by getting a head start on the destruction of the Earth?

That's very thoughtful, but not in anyone's self-interest, as God will destroy those who destroy the earth. Personally, I like the earth intact, so I don't see the rush to get rid of it.

Great post SivartM

[Dr. Rich]

Originally Posted By: fccool

The argument of "people over Earth" ignores that there can't be people without earth. It's a symbiotic relationship. When one turns into a parasite and kills the host, then the parasite will eventually die off too.

Environmentalism is not about choosing earth over people. It's about showing that excessive profit-motivated practices will lead to eventual harm of people themselves in the long run.

It's about balance.

Exactly

Perhaps you forgot the word 'heaven'?

If you are an Adventist then you know that the earth will be totally destroyed and made new. So why care about the earth problems over people problems? Those saved will NOT be here on this earth when God totally destroyes it so what gives with all of the 'save the spotted owl' nonsense?

Or, perhaps you are not an Adventists but a tree hugger and mistakenly belive that killing animals is murder? Is this not another way of saying that humans are taking the back seat to environmentalism?

[fccool]

Quote:

Perhaps you forgot the word 'heaven'?

If you are an Adventist then you know that the earth will be totally destroyed and made new. So why care about the earth problems over people problems? Those saved will NOT be here on this earth when God totally destroyes it so what gives with all of the 'save the spotted owl' nonsense?

This is an absurd argument that's reducing Environmentalism to saving and preserving certain species. I think both of us know that Environmentalism is not limited to that.

"Earth problems" and "people problems" is very much the same thing. I'll give you a very small example of it.

Sometime ago Chinese Government had brilliant idea of killing off population of sparrows to increase their harvests. They paid people for killing and bringing in the sparrows and various small birds that were feeding at the fields. So, people have killed quite a bit of these. What happened? That year they had enormous infestation of locust, which ended up destroying the crops.

The point being is that nature is naturally balanced. When humans tip that balance, whether intentionally or not, they only harm themselves.

Just like in religion, there are extremist factions among environmentalists... it does not mean however that all of them are extreme, the way you try to pain them.

Quote:

Or, perhaps you are not an Adventists but a tree hugger and mistakenly belive that killing animals is murder? Is this not another way of saying that humans are taking the back seat to environmentalism?

Murder is an unjustified killing. If you walked into your friend's house and shot their dog... that would land you in jail for murder, believe it or not. There are lines to be drawn, and symbiotic relationships to be maintained.

Where did you get the idea that Adventism and Environmentalism are mutually exclusive to begin with??

Now, an interesting thought for you... what happens if Jesus does not come back in this century or the next one? What then? Should our grand-kids suffer the consequences of your brilliant conclusions and theology?

[Dr. Rich]

LOL, no my friend, killing an animal for any reason is NOT murder. Murder can only be for a human--that's it! And for that matter, Jesus WILL come at the appointed time and that time is before this generation dies off. That's a fact. It is clear to me that this will only be known by the 'bondservants', those named in Rev. 1:1 as only them will be able to understand. None of the wicked will ever understand. (Dan. 12:10.

Please read what happens to this world in Rev. 8 and then adjust that to your thinking.

[phkrause]

Rev 1:1 This is the revelation which God gave to Yeshua the Messiah, so that he could show his servants what must happen very soon. He communicated it by sending his angel to his servant Yochanan, What bond servant? This is saying "servants" period. To me that is saying all those that follow him are his servants. The Bible is for all not just a select few.

[Dr. Rich]

Your bible stinks. Read it from the American Standard--as that word does not merely mean an employee, but one who has been purchased and therefore a bondservant. Read Rev. 5:9-10 and you will see that this will verify that they are truely bond servants--not merely servants.

[fccool]

LOL, no my friend, killing an animal for any reason is NOT murder. Murder can only be for a human--that's it! And for that matter, Jesus WILL come at the appointed time and that time is before this generation dies off. That's a fact. It is clear to me that this will only be known by the 'bondservants', those named in Rev. 1:1 as only them will be able to understand. None of the wicked will ever understand. (Dan. 12:10.

Please read what happens to this world in Rev. 8 and then adjust that to your thinking.

Murder is merely a human-centric definition of wasting life, so to speak. The core principle remains the same.

For example, justifiable killing of humans is not considered neither murder, nor immoral. I really don't want to write another book here on philosophy behind morality... but I can demonstrate that to you in one simple scenario.

Let's say you found bunch of dynamite, and just for fun you go around lakes and blow the fish out of the water and just let it rot there. What would make such behavior wrong? Do you believe such behavior would be wrong. Why?

[phkrause]

My Bible doesn't stink sir and neither does your Bible. But I will go with mine. If anyone understands what Jews wrote, would be Jews and Messianic Jews at that. Not people that have an agenda as to what they'd like it to say or mean. Maybe you should think outside the box.

[Naomi]

phk ...

[M. T. Cross]

Murder is merely a human-centric definition of wasting life, so to speak. The core principle remains the same.

For example, justifiable killing of humans is not considered neither murder, nor immoral. I really don't want to write another book here on philosophy behind morality... but I can demonstrate that to you in one simple scenario.

Let's say you found bunch of dynamite, and just for fun you go around lakes and blow the fish out of the water and just let it rot there. What would make such behavior wrong? Do you believe such behavior would be wrong. Why?

YES!!! Spot on.

Now I am not opposed to the killing of animals for food, but things like trophy hunting, catch and release fishing etc bugs me to no end.

I worked on the kill floor of a slaughter house for almost a year. Anyone that can spend time in that industry and walk away thinking that an animals life is any less a real life than human is psychotic IMO.

I like the old idea of thatnking the animal for its life

[phkrause]

phk ...

Thanks Naomi, unfortunately I think we're getting pulled off the topic a little with this "my Bible is better than yours" garbage!

[Dr. Rich]

Neither do I want to pound 'law' into your understanding, but the law is the law and murder is only for the unlawful killing of a human. Look up the meaning of the word murder before you use it wrong again.

If the fish were trash fish, then it would not be wrong to do as what you said with the poor fish. It is all about the intent. Are you going to say that God is going to murder as found in Rev. 8? If you do, then that is your choice, but God does not do any murdering. Adam simply did not obey God and the penalty for that (not murder) was the second death. Michael then agreed to take the place of Adam for this ONE penalty and was placed into mary as a zygot by His Father God and Mother God (Holy Spirit) so He could be born of a human in order to be able to be killed by His own Father (wasn't that the penalty?). He did this so that you and I could still have a choice to obey--or not. Obey and be saved, or not by choosing to pay for your own sins by dying the second death.

[Dr. Rich]

Originally Posted By: Naomi

phk ...

Thanks Naomi, unfortunately I think we're getting pulled off the topic a little with this "my Bible is better than yours" garbage!

Look up that word PK! I know you use that Jewish bible on many occaisions and it (in my own opinion) it has probably led you astray some what, and that my feelings about the bible you depend upon, as I too have that bible and see all of the many problems with it, is that it 'stinks' meaning that it is tainted to a Jewish degree of bias--just as the KJV and the Clear Word Bible. But lets not go there==the thing is that Revelation was only given to those first fruits, the 144k to fully understand. No one else will ever be able to understand it.

Those of us that know (not merely thinking) what and when things will take place will someday soon make known to the rest of the world because at that time they will be shining like the stars and will lead many to righteouness as found in Dan. 12.

[fccool]

Quote:

Neither do I want to pound 'law' into your understanding, but the law is the law and murder is only for the unlawful killing of a human. Look up the meaning of the word murder before you use it wrong again.

Are things wrong because they are illegal, or they are illegal because these are wrong?

I already know the meaning of the word murder, and it's crafted to serve a purpose in relation of humans to humans. It does not mean that murder can in fact extend beyond such definition in terms of core principles behind the idea, and not the current definition of the word itself, which is currently used for the purpose of judicial pragmatism.

Let's say a humanoid alien landed on the planet. He's friendly, but you in cold blood cut off his head. According to your definition, that's not murder at all. Murder is only for humans

If you break in and shoot my dog in the middle of my living room... you better bet that I will consider it a murder and not a killing.

Quote:

If the fish were trash fish, then it would not be wrong to do as what you said with the poor fish.

Trash fish? What do you mean by that? You mean that certain living organisms are trash and could be killed without any consideration in whatever numbers you want to? Where would you draw the line... and if you do, what would make it wrong to kill off all of the "trash fish" in the world?

Quote:

It is all about the intent. Are you going to say that God is going to murder as found in Rev. 8?

My personal opinion is that God will not anymore than this world will not end next year according to some interpretation of Mayan Calendar.

But, even if He did... that would be a justified killing of the bad guys from such perspective, which by definition is not murder. Murder is unjustified killing.

Quote:

If you do, then that is your choice, but God does not do any murdering. Adam simply did not obey God and the penalty for that (not murder) was the second death. Michael then agreed to take the place of Adam for this ONE penalty and was placed into mary as a zygot by His Father God and Mother God (Holy Spirit) so He could be born of a human in order to be able to be killed by His own Father (wasn't that the penalty?). He did this so that you and I could still have a choice to obey--or not. Obey and be saved, or not by choosing to pay for your own sins by dying the second death.

Thank you for the sermon. I hope I've clarified it above enough for you to understand why it's unnecessary.

[Dr. Rich]

Fccool, sorry for the sermon, but God will destory this world and everything in it. It will happen before this generation dies out. Many will be surprised I am sure, but when it starts to happen, just remember what you have heard.

Yes fccool, there are trash fish. Perhaps you are not an outdoorsman as I am and understand these things, so please google it and see that there is a problem with trash fish. Look what silly enviormentalism did to Yellowstone--puting wolves in places they do not belong and then not allowing another preditor animal to get involved (humans). Now there is nothing to kill the overgrowing of those stupid wolves that are killing animals all over the place--on my ranch too which is 28 miles away from Yellowstone. How dumb was that?

[fccool]

Fccool, sorry for the sermon, but God will destory this world and everything in it. It will happen before this generation dies out. Many will be surprised I am sure, but when it starts to happen, just remember what you have heard.