The Earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof - Psalm 24:1
As followers of Jesus Christ, committed to the full authority of the Scriptures, and aware of the ways we have degraded creation, we believe that biblical faith is essential to the solution of our ecological problems. Continue...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
Gee RAC, I am no preacher. But I am a Christian. In the Bible, God speaks our bodies as the temples of the Holy Spirit, and that we should maintain our bodies for the Holy Spirit. God also gave us the ‘Word’, or Bible, to prepare believers for the last days and for eternal life. The Bible also mentions the disasters and the destruction of the earth that is ‘inevitable and will happen’ or come pass in the last days. No environmental precautions will help the Earth out here if you believe the Bible. Also in the Book of Daniel, it is written that great knowledge of man will be one sign of the last days (our/like our time maybe?). But nowhere does it mention ecological problem solving that I have read. What is to be will be.
But then again, I am not preacher. Please, any God fearing, God loving person correct me if I am off target or wrong.
Ric, you are dead on. But first let me say, I think RAC (who can speak for himself on this) is bringing up the lunacy in this group. There are many groups that take the Word of God out of context and change its meaning. Hitler did it, the KKK does it, Jesse Jackson does it. I know people that won't give candy out to children on Halloween, because it is the "Devils Day". No where, and yes I have read it, does the Bible speak on Halloween. I does however say not to cut down and evergreen, nail it to a stand and decorate it with silver and gold. Hey, that sounds like a Christmas tree!!! Yes, I put one up every year. Jeremiah was instructed not to do it, and become like the pagans. (If anyone would like to discuss the beginnings and traditions to holidays, I will be up for that) So don't let someone twist the Word of God into upsetting you.
Ric, you are right, God tells us to use all the resources he has created. That includes animals and all parts of the earth. The earth will suffer catastrophic events. This is in no way controlled by man. Never has and never will be. If you believe that man can truly harm the earth, hat is to say that man is larger than God.
I read through this. I find it odd that this is used to describe Christians. I was not offended in any way, but I see that Ric was. This group is a wacko left wing group that uses the name of God to forward its environmental will.
So Ric, I do not think these are true Christians, because they deny the true word of God. Sit back and enjoy what goes on with it, but it is nothing. Don't get your dander up if the discussions of Jones town as Christians or David Koresh as the second coming of Christ:)
My point is that not all Christians subscribe to the belief that man should hasten the return of Christ by destroying the world. I find it humorous when one Christian believes he has the power to judge who is a true Christian and who is not. I thought that right was reserved for the Big Man Himself.
The United Methodist Church also believes in stewardship rather than exploitation of God's creation. Does this mean your sister is also not a true Christian? That's OK, at least she's in good company. Check out the list of 86 Evangelical leaders who signed the Evangelical Climate Initiative. No kidding, read it. Read the initiative too and then tell me how the likes of Rev. Dr. Leith Anderson, President, National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), Senior Pastor, Wooddale Church, Eden Prairie, MN and Rev. Dr. Rick Warren(you may have heard of him), Senior Pastor, Saddleback Church; author of The Purpose Driven Life; Lake Forest, CA are not a true Christians.
Like it or not, environmentalism is a growing movement amoung conservative evangelicals. This includes this untrue Christian:
[In the] summer of 2006 on his 700 Club television show, [Pat] Robertson stated that "they're making a convert out of me." He also said "We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels. If we are contributing to the destruction of this planet, we need to do something about it."
RAC, for every different Christian Denomination, there is one thing in common; they all have slightly different beliefs.
I only believe what is in the written word of God, the Bible. I personally don’t give a hoot what a bunch of people in a church may write down on paper and sign. It is insignificant to me.
Ric, in your previous comment you asked "Please, any God fearing, God loving person correct me if I am off target or wrong." I just gave you 87 of them and now they are insignificant? I'm confused...
RAC, if you read my first posting on this thread; “But nowhere does it mention ecological problem solving that I have read?” (Obviously I was referring to the Bible here).
Yes I saw all 86 of the signatures, and the Evangelical Climate Initiative. Man wrote that. I was referring to the Bible.
From the Evangelical Climate Initiative:
Christians must care about climate change because we love God the Creator and Jesus our Lord, through whom and for whom the creation was made. This is God’s world, and any damage that we do to God’s world is an offense against God Himself (Gen. 1; Ps. 24; Col. 1:16).
Christians must care about climate change because we are called to love our neighbors, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and to protect and care for the least of these as though each was Jesus Christ himself (Mt. 22:34-40; Mt. 7:12; Mt. 25:31-46).
Christians, noting the fact that most of the climate change problem is human induced, are reminded that when God made humanity he commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures. Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better (Gen. 1:26-28).
Yes, this is a group of Christians making written statements referencing to verses in the Bible that has nothing to do with Climate Initiative.
Gen. 1; God is creating the Universe. Ps. 24; Col. “the earth is the Lord”, Ok close but no cigar.
Mt. 22:34-40; Talks about love. Mt. 7:12; Talks about do unto others as… Mt. 25:31-46 speaks of the Judgment day.
Gen. 1:26-28 talks about man being made in His likeness.
When any Denomination tries to tell me that “God this or God that”, I always say, show it to me in the Bible. I don’t want to hear or see man-made laws in a church. There nothing…..
So are you saying the Bible is open to interpretation? Is it possible for 2 people to read the exact same verse and come to different conclusions as to its meaning?
"RAC, for every different Christian Denomination, there is one thing in common; they all have slightly different beliefs". And I may add interpretations as well.
I would think from a Christian standpoint there's no stronger argument for showing respect to the earth than “the earth is the Lord”. Close? Seems pretty spot on to me. I mean, you wouldn't take the Lord's name in vain would you?
Never ;)
Actually the verse is: The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.
Thinking back to the old ‘bus stop’ days, I don’t think any of us had such intense conversations as this? If we did, we were either too hammered or stoned to remember. Wow, look at us now. Where did we go wrong? ;)
Ric and RAC, great discourse!
You both have great points.
RAC, I agree with the you on the point that too many Christians and the belief of "end times" coming soon. It is not Biblical to say, "it is coming soon".
The Bible tells us many times to judge others by there "fruits". No where in the Bible does it say "not to judge at all". When it has talked about "not judging others", it is Solly in the context of "hypocrisy". Which I agree on. Don'T tell me not to get drunk, while you are drunk. Simple concept, hu.
However,be careful who you quote. I have studied many of the things you have brought up. Many are the strange fringe. And as Ric pointed out, every "denomination" has it's own "not in the Bible" beliefs.
The 700 club is a wacko group in my mind. Good Christians with obscure view points. I remember one night watching Pat Robertson. He looked into the camera, staring at the viewers at home and said, "I see a lady in a blue dress with back pain. You are healed now!", and went on to talk about the miraculous healing of her. I do believe in healing, don't get me wrong, but if he had the gift of healing, he would walk through a children's ward touching and healing them all. Televangelists are one of the worst form of Christian in my view.
I have no problem with anyone saying, "this is Gods creation, we must be good stewards of it", or any variance of that.
Ric, once again you are dead on. The Bahrain's in the book of Acts always went back to the scriptures to be sure what Paul was saying was true. As far as "interpretation", God, through the Holy Spirit can show you something different than I am seeing at any time. That is how the Word of God stays true. But, it had better be true to the context of the verse, chapter, book and whole of the Bible. The Bible is constant and never changing.
We have all taken the "Lords name in vain". This, if you study, does not mean to swear. The words "vain" and "blasphemy" mean to "do wrong" by the Lord. "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" simply means to reject him. We all do that before we accept him into our lives as Lord and Savior.
RAC, Remember some of the Pastors and Denominations you mentioned are liberal churches. Desi is a Methodist Minister and is very liberal, both in her life and spiritual beliefs. I love her to death, but she does not take the Bible as it is writen.
Aren’t we a County that was based on Judaic and Christian beliefs? "Supreme Court Turns Down Challenge to Jury's Use of Bible
Monday, April 20, 2009
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a challenge from a Texas death row inmate who claimed his constitutional rights were violated by jurors who consulted a Bible".
Well, it seems to me that at least one of our three ‘checks and balances’ uses some common sense.
Yes Ric, The founding fathers were very up front about the country being founded on the Bible. Even those who were not Christian like Benjamin Franklin (a Deist) and Thomas Jefferson (an Agnostic) proudly professed that the country would be better served by the Biblical laws than those of man. Even the way we voted, was in line with the Bible.
I do not know anyone that can truly say that living by Biblical rules is bad.
So Ric, you have it right again!!!
DRL,
what you have stated regarding Jefferson & Franklin is not entirely accurate.
While they may have been of the opinion that the individual may be better served by Biblical law in their personal lives, they certainly were not of the same mind when it pertained to the State.
They realized that that could lead to a Theocracy.
Why would they struggle as mightily as they did to throw off the chains of a monarchy, only to subjugate the new Republic to yet another authority?
Further, there was the recognition that Biblical beliefs can be interpreted variously and with personal bias over a wide spectrum. To say nothing of the potential limitations on freedoms of religion and expression typically found in Theocracies.
I would say a majority of the framers of the Constitution were men of belief in God. They also were of the belief that the decision as to how to worship one's God, if at all, was an entirely personal one not to be codified in binding legislation.
This is really hurting my fingertips to type this but Doug is ah,um,ah well, um.. Right. Okay there I said it.Shit. Good post Doug. I think the majority of the founding fathers would prefer that you believed in "God" but would NEVER want any church of any denomination or religion running the government. They also would not want any one in government telling you who to worship.Shit my fingers really hurt. Oww.
Doug, Yes it was, unless you can find something to the contrary. As you look at the Constitutional Convention, Federalist Papers and other personal writings, I am right. What they did not want was a Theocracy, a return to the Church of England, true. However as Ric eluded to and I have said, The Declaration of Independence, Constitution of The United States, Bill of Rights and Federalist Papers, all are grounded in Biblical Morals. Remember many of the Founding Fathers (Franklin and Jefferson) in no way thought that Biblical morals conducted there day to day lives. They knew however, to have a secure nation, there needed to be. In order to keep a theocracy from forming, the Bill of Rights made sure that there would not be a "State Church", such as the Church of England". It was not the Founding Fathers that fled, that happened many years earlier. Most of the Founding Fathers were born in the Colonies, nothing to flee from.
I am right on this one, and personal opinion makes no difference.
Treaty of Tripoli (ratified by the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by President John Adams on June 10, 1797.)
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The Senate's ratification was only the third recorded unanimous vote of 339 taken. The treaty was printed in the Philadelphia Gazette and two New York papers, with no evidence of any public dissent.
Sorry RAC, Bad choice. This was a treaty, a political paper to another country. No go. Try again.
Well DRL, your supposed "evidence" included general reference to the "Constitutional Convention, Federalist Papers and other personal writings". However, you failed to reference any of these specifically. If you would please be so kind, please provide details for your references; otherwise your argument has no teeth. Unlike mine which shows the sentiment of the entire Congress and President around the time of the founding of this country.
I love to see a Liberal squirm! You go RAC!
"Most of the Founding Fathers were born in the Colonies, nothing to flee from."
Excepting of course the public hanging for sedition they faced had the revolution failed.
Asking for references is squirming? I'm trying to give your brother the benifit of the doubt and allow him to back up his claims with hard evidence. Sorry, but I don't believe something just because you say it's true - your going to have to prove it (probably why I don't do well with religion). Until then it means nothing.
Doug, you are so right, if the revolution would have failed, every founding father and their family would have been killed. In Fact many of them lost family members and fortunes to make sure we could be free. I was referring to "fleeing from religious tierney".
RAC, I am happy to, I just thought you would have when you searched for it.
And RAC, I was taken wrong, I meant that it was a treaty and many things are said to appease those you are trying to get an agreement with. That's all I meant.
I will start with John Adams, before he was President. Speaking of July 4, 1776, he said, "I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It out to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, bo solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty."
"We have no goverment armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the goverment of any other".
Patrick Henry (of course a founding father),
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, bot by religionists, but by Christioans, not on religion but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
Noah Webster, Founding Father,
"The religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and his apostles, which enjoins humility, piety and benevolince; which acknoledges in every person a brother, or a sister, and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of goverment."
George Washington, I belive this was at his enogural adress.
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible".
I have a lot more if you would like. I do not think you were squirming, but wanted to know if I knew what I was saying. I just feel like I am standing on a soap box and I don't want to do that, okay.
I am sorry, I was doing my "spell check" and somehow it got published before I was done. Sorry for the spelling.
Oops, turns out half your references are forgeries. Even still, they would cover only the personal writings department. I am more interested in your reference to the Federalist Papers. If you can provide the evidence you claim for a Christian Nation and Biblical law in those papers then you might have a valid argument.
What we do know as fact about Washington is he was a Freemason. If your claim was this nation was founded on Freemason principles I would agree wholeheartedly. It should be noted that one can not be a Freemason without belief in a higher power. However, I would argue that a Freemason's concept of God transcends that of your garden variety Christian. Also, Masonry is not religion specific - being a Christian is not a prerequisite.
RAC, my bad. I do not articulate very well. I did not mean to agree with Ric that America is solely a Christian country. No, what I meant was that the Founding Fathers, while drafting the Deceleration of Independence, Constitution, and Amendments to the Constitution used the Biblical base of morality for the ground work or foundation. They all wanted to stay as far away from a "Church of England" (which ran the country) as they could. However for Ric to say, "we are a Judaic/Christian country is still true. Look at the inscriptions throughout the granite buildings.
You too are correct on the Free Masons. I believe Washington was a 32 level or what ever the correct name. Anyway, he along with most of the Founding Fathers were Free Masons, and I believe they had allot of influence from that angle as well. But, "God", "The Almighty", "Bible" and other things are mentioned that would exclude the Free Masons.
I don't know or want anyone to think I am an expert or even layperson on this matter. I only know that the Bible did play a "part" in the construction of this country.
Well, I had to let the furry kids out to the bathroom, time to go back to bed. Good night all.
RAC, I looked at the link you put up for the forged quotes. One of the problems is we were not there. If I fell for any forgeries, I whole heartily apologize. I would not lie to make a point. I would sooner admit fault that lie my way out or convince someone with a lie.
I to, looking at the link, found that it had a biased lean to it. When I read from a site that is bent on one leaning or the other, I prefer not to use them. For example the 700 club, I would not quote anything from them. However, I am not defending anything I put up. If I was duped, I will retract them. Okay?
So, Please take this as an apology.
Nothing to apologize for DRL. There's plenty of erroneous info out there which makes it easy to be duped. I'm sure I've posted my fair share of it too. ;)
Post a Comment