"You can't love God and ignore the earth"

I read this article this morning on The United Methodist Church Facebook page. Do people of faith, Christians are specifically called out in this article, have a responsibility to be environmentalists?

United Methodist Church
Susan Passi-Klaus
http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/christians-and-earth-day-you-cant-love-god-and-ignore-earth


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Didn't read, but basically, I think we do. God gave us this earth to have dominion over. He wants us to use it, but not abuse it.

 

Agreed, but then why are conservative republicans who tend to be people of faith so against environmentalism and conservation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

We are not against conservation. Everyone wants clean air, clean water, safe food. But that's not what "environmentalists" want, they want no pollution at all, they want no human impact on nature, they want to be "one with nature", they hate any and all industrialization or human use of the planet.

 

I read the link, she is a global warming wacko environmentalist who believes our personal health is tied directly to the health of Mother Nature, she was a wacko enviro before she ever got involved in the Methodist Church.

 

Actually what they want is to lower CO2 emissions.

The U.S. Military and specifically navy is currently panning and i some cases already evacuating the populations of several Pacific island nations that due to Global Warming and sea level rise have lost their ability to plant crops as even small storms have resulted if the complete flooding of their entire islands with salt water.

The U.S. Military has a number of Networked Supercomputers running 24/7 365 days a year and the data imputed into these computers comes from the CDIAC.....Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center which is part of the U.S. DOE...Dept. of Energy's Office of Science at Oak Ridge National Labs.

These are the same nice people who supply the U.S. Military with weapons grade nuclear fuel.

AA

 

As defined by whom?

 

Thanks for proving my point. All she says is that to truly love God we must take care of the earth, and you turn that it's she's an "environmentalist wacko."

 

According to whom? I'm a raging environmentalist but also recognize that we cannot have zero impact it's impossible. Significant changes need to happen to lessen pollution, have cleaner air and water as well as safer food. Do you agree with that statement? All environmentalists want to see is a college effort in place for some of these things, not a kindergarten effort. Environmentalists also recognize that this planet isn't getting any larger, so if our population is going to continue to increase exponentially we are going to face some serious resource issues. Conservatives seem to have little desire to make big changes to lessen damage. Not eliminate it completely, but lessen it.

 

Yes it's true, conservatives want to starve old people and children and rape the earth.

 

Well the ones in congress sure seem to want to.

 

You obviously did not read your own link. While at the Univ of Vermont she was studying "the environment", she is a follower of Al Gore, she seems more concerned about animal and plant species than the human species, she says we should channel our passion into things that make a difference - "installing solar panels, harnessing wind power". Not one word about human salvation or spreading the word of God (the Great Commission given directly from Jesus).

 

How clean does the air have to be? How clean does the water have to be? Environmentalists seem to think the air and water have to be perfect, that's why they support the ever increasing reach of the EPA and oppose every activity that will reduce pollution but will not eliminate pollution (like switching to natural gas from coal). Instead of putting resources into improving coal/gas/oil systems and filtering technology, environmentalists want those systems eliminated immediately and replaced with solar and wind - utterly ridiculous.

Environmentalists will always claim they want to "lessen" pollution, and they do want to "lessen" pollution - until there is no pollution at all, and humans have no footprint on the planet.

 

So because she studied the environment and likes Al Gore she's a complete wacko? That's kind of a jump. I'm sure she fights for those things too... But that particular article was about the environment therefore they focus on the environment.

 

Have you been to Los Angeles? I would say clean enough that there isn't a giant layer of smog hovering the city 365 days a year. I'd rather avoid having to wear masks like they do in China, Nepal and other densely populated countries.

Well we could start with getting rid of lead from water across the US, that's be a good starting place. Oil spills in the ocean are pretty horrific. Agricultural run off poisons waterways all over this country to the point of creating "dead zones" where plants and fish no longer can survive.

Sorry if having dreams and goals is a downer for you. Why not shoot for perfect? We may not get to perfect, but in the process of reaching for perfect we sure do lessen pollution. Cap and trade is a perfect example of lessening pollution dramatically but not eliminating it. Environmentalists are totally up for efforts that make a large impact.

Clean coal is an oxymoron. Why do people insist on saving coal? Because of the jobs? Those are some of the worst jobs. People should not have to acquire lung cancer for a job. There are safer options for the poor people who have to work in coal. Why keep them in one of the dirtiest industries? In the words of Elsa "let it go." Coal is of the past, there are better and safer ways.

And that is a bad thing? That's like saying anti smoking ad campaigns are terrible because they want everyone to quit smoking. Um, wouldn't that be a good thing? I guess it wouldn't be for big tobacco. So eliminating "our footprint" would be great for everyone but big oil. Excuse me if my sympathy for big oil is non existent.

Here's what I think is really important. The reality is that this planet will move forward with greener technologies. We can either be in front of the line leading the way, or jump on the back after another country has all the patents, control etc. just like we have with oil. Why wouldn't we want to be the inventors of the next energy revolution? How would that be bad for America? If we could really perfect clean energy we could sell it to countries like China. We could sell it to countries who have limited access to energy. I'm not saying wind, solar or wave technology is perfect yet, but America has the money and talent to perfect those and other things like biofuels, efficient recycling, and who knows what else. The person to figure out how to efficiently get rid of plastic on a large scale, for real, would change this world. I want that person to be an american. I want people to look at America and see innovation again. There is no reason America couldn't change the way this planet gets its energy. Why continue to rely on the Saudis? Screw them. Let's be innovative and come up with new technologies and strategies that THEY want to buy from US! I think the prospect of new and different sources of energy is the future and I get excited thinking my nephews could be part of creating that world. Humanity is ready for the next level, don't you want to drive that bus rather than jump on at the last second?

 

LOL! So that's what 'they' want because you stomp your feet and insist it simply must be the case.

Yeah, you run with that, sport.

 

No, that article was supposedly about God's mandate that Christians maintain the earth and all the creatures. It was on the United Methodist Church official web site (www.umc.org), it's audience was Christians, not environmentalists. The purpose was to convince Christians to move toward the green agenda.

And the article failed, it did not present an argument grounded in the Bible, it was a populist argument written by an environmentalist for environmentalists but with a sprinkle of religion.

 

You have completely proven my point that environmentalists will never be satisfied until there is no pollution and no human footprint. There will always be a human impact on the planet, there will never be a water and air pollution level of zero.

 

So on the one hand you put your trust in technology, believing that technology can invent some way to generate massive amounts of energy (and store that energy) via solar, wind, and wave. You want to invest a lot of time and money into developing those methods in the hope that one day they will be suitable to power a large industrial nation.

But before that day when solar/wind/wave is mature enough to replace coal and oil, you want to abolish coal and oil power generation. What do you plan to do about the energy deficit - not enough energy for the nation to operate? Or does reality not factor into your green world?

On the other hand, you are not willing to give technology a chance to develop better ways to utilize coal. If technology is the savior of solar/wind/wave, why isn't it also the savior of coal and oil? Why not let those industries develop better filters, better burning processes, and invent better ways to process and mine coal? You don't even want them to try, in fact you don't even want to let them try.

Obviously you are biased, and your bias is not based on technology or reality.

 

Yes. The real message should be kill everything else God made except us. He'd love that message. How exactly are they supposed to encourage "maintaining the earth and all its creatures" without encouraging taking better care of the environment?

 

I flat out said it's impossible to not have an impact. Simple math proves that's not possible. I said lessen like 6 times in that post.

 

I think you are struggling with your own personal bias against religion and conservatives.

Christians are to be responsible caretakers of the earth, but not subservient to it. People come before animals.

Environmentalists seem to think that anyone who does not want a pristine world wants to "kill everything and destroy the world". That's ridiculous. Nobody wants to breathe foul air or drink contaminated water, but nobody wants to have to grow their own food and live in a hut without air conditioning or heating or running water. Even people like you will very quickly change your tune when the electricity gets shut off.

 

Because they aren't. They could have been trying to clean up coal for decades, and in some ways have, but it's not good enough in my book. Coal isn't unlimited as far as I can tell. It just kicks the can down the road for the next generation even if you can filter the dust and fumes better. The reason solar, wind etc haven't really "saved us" is because we've given it a kindergarten effort. I'm actually not a huge fan of wind. There are millions of bird and bat deaths as a result of wind turbines. I'd be more interested in wind if someone could design a turbine that didn't kill wildlife.

The downside to solar farms is they just cover even more land with artificial man made objects. Now if panels were on every roof, parking garage etc. then we'd be talking. Some cities require new homes be built with solar panels, I think that's great!

A huge benefit I see from things like solar power is that we can be more self sufficient. Energy companies have complete monopolies and there's nothing we can do about it. There's a gas station by where I work covered in solar panels. Genius! We're still going to buy gas obviously, but they are reducing their output, not eliminating it obviously, and not having to rely on Xcel Energy as much because their roof creates energy for them. Seems like a win win.

 

In literal religious terms, God created the earth and everything in it; then--almost as an afterthought--created mankind. One could say that mankind was created because God wanted someone to appreciate his 'handiwork'. Somewhere in the bible though it says that man should "subdue" the earth; and many people take that to mean to fracking 'murder' it. Some Evangelicals--if not all of them--believe that love for God's 'handiwork' is evil; and that worshipping, or just marveling at Mother Nature is akin to worshipping a false God. I know an Evangelical who, in her many years as an Evangelical, never saw the beauty in trees, or anything natural--except maybe rocks that have been cut and made into jewelry. Crying shame--literally.

 

Yes, you did, but your desire to "lessen" did not agree with the rest of your post.

For example, you wrote "clean coal is an oxymoron". Why? You put your faith in technology finding a solution to clean energy, but only if its your chosen method of clean energy. You won't allow technology to solve problems with coal.

Over 40% of the world runs on coal, particularly the 3rd world. Solar/wind/wave isn't even close to displacing coal. Doesn't it make sense to work on clean coal until some other power generation method is invented (which is decades away)? In the meantime, the world is not going to drop coal no matter how much the USA whines, so isn't it better to at least clean coal up as much as possible until it can be replaced?

Now do you see a difference between reality and the environmentalists?